Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#713467 Apr 8, 2014
Susie D wrote:
Who can't see or hear me now? lol
Catcher1Rocco.....

~sniggers

“What game?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#713468 Apr 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
As are mine.
Yeah it's pretty laughable when they say they don't have a dogma or no belief system.
"no one has killed for atheism" gets thrown around here far too often.
Nobody has ever killed for atheism.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#713469 Apr 8, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
The facts "are" that a crucifixion victim could last between several minutes up to three days. It depended on which organs or veins were pierced and whether they bled out immediately or slowly.
You make absolutely no sense, Gumby. None.
People die just as uniquely as they live.
Hey now, you can't argue with the great and wonderful, illustrious Ben. He's a master archaeologist and historian, university trained and university excelled. He's also selling a beach house in Arizona...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#713470 Apr 8, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo Freebird.
We have not spoken before. I am Double Fine. The Shaman of Sexy, The Guru of Greatness, the Ayatollah of Rock n' Rolla.
I would lile to ask you a few questions, if you do not mind.
1) Do you only see atheists attacking Christians?
2) Do you consider the atheist position one of anger?
3) Do you think it is possible to be angry at a deity you do not believe in?
4) If yes, are you angry at goddess Khali?
5) We may sometimes insult your religion, but do atheists ever prohibit you from going to church?
Not at all.
1. There are equal opportunity attacks.
2. I consider particular atheists to be angry.
3. I think the anger is directed at religion and not the deity.The intent is to enflame the believers and it is acheived by insulting the deity as a tool to acheive that end.
4. I'm not angry at anyone at the moment.
5. I don't see a need for quid pro quo insults, ever. Unfortunately at times we are all dragged into it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#713471 Apr 8, 2014
River Tam wrote:
Nobody has ever killed for atheism.
Says the Topix Atheist! Coalition Force.

History and fact say otherwise.

Decisions, decisions......

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#713472 Apr 8, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Freebird. No can do. Does not work that way. You are more than welcome to argue some of his points, of course giving credit where due, but you telling us to go read that dude is like me telling you to read the God Delusion to prove to you that your religion is false.
Present an argument, vased on sources, then cite those sources. That is how we play
I read the God Delusion and found it to be an angry rant as much as any kind of refutation of a deity. Dawkins is angry at religion.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#713473 Apr 8, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
There is more ancient evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar.
And yet there is no evidence whatsoever that confirms Julius Caesar or the Jesus! being gods. However, it was said both were deities...

After their death.

Your statement, "There is more ancient evidence for Jesus than for Julius Caesar", is based upon religious texts, some complete, incomplete, and fragmentary bits of text - the biblical account.

Secular references are brief, unable to be substantiated as to any claim to godhood, and are dubious in origin or veracity - as it relates to an actual person, IE; the Jesus! And again, still drawn - in origin - from biblical accounts.

Just for an example, using your comparison to Julius Caesar; under whose command were the Gallic Wars and Roman invasion of Britain conducted?

Good ole' JC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_invas...

We even have writings done by Julius Caesar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_b...

What did the Jesus! write or was said to have written?

Nothing.

What verified historical events can the Jesus be directly tied to?












Right.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#713474 Apr 8, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>Want sy is te simpel om die som self te doen?
Of dalk n leuenaar?
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#713475 Apr 8, 2014
Lowrider22 wrote:
I often wonder at someone is clinging to life and they have been a non believer, do they suddenly begin to pray and rethink the God religion thing
I wouldnt,too many gods to choose from..

www.godchecker.com

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#713476 Apr 8, 2014
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The facts "are" that a crucifixion victim could last between several minutes up to three days. It depended on which organs or veins were pierced and whether they bled out immediately or slowly.
You make absolutely no sense, Gumby. None.
People die just as uniquely as they live.
This is true. Age, body mass index, bone density, hydration levels, blood sugar levels, etc,etc. all are factors. Add to this the traumatic level of damage to vital organs, blood loss, susceptibility to shock, body temperature, psychological state, etc, etc.

Ben Adam is making a critical error. He's assuming that all victims would last several days just because the method of execution was designed to be prolonged. This is just silly. We can examine present day executions and discover that different individuals die at different rates of speed. The infamous electric chair didn't always kill its victims with the first jolt. Lethal injection victims have expired in as few as 5 minutes or as long as 20 minutes. Some peaceful, and others not so much.
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#713477 Apr 8, 2014
Apocalypse666 wrote:
No the point was prove it to be fact.
I believe there is no god because common sense dictates there isn't one.
So if it is a fact then prove it.
Saying you have to believe is no different than Santa Clause.
So prove that god is real and is a factual being.
If he is real then you can prove it.
If he is not then you cannot prove it.
darkhorse85 wrote:
<quoted text>
Common sense subjective and limited to ones own mental agility. You are basing the existence of God on a person's ability to deliver information on issue.
Strange you are asking this question as you already seem to have made up your mind. Which begs the question why are you really asking?
Do you truly believe think you personally deserve this information or do just desire it?
so you cant Prove god either
Thnx

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#713478 Apr 8, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
It's a modern misconception to believe that ancient writings should adapt to our understanding. This is a literary fallacy.
It's also a fallacy to assert that we - and by that I mean anyone - can't understand those ancient writings and what they represent.
Rather than presuppose that a writing should conform to our understanding, it is our responsibility to conform our understanding to the past writing in an attempt to discern what the writer is trying to say from within a specific culture, during a specific time in history.
Don't think that I'm advocating that we should think as they did, but rather that we should be aware of how they thought and how those thoughts influenced the way in which they wrote.
Having said that, the style of ancient writers varied in accordance with their intended audience, and their purpose in writing. Even if you don't want to accept the gospels as divinely inspired, they are very early and very primitive attempts to write history.


The preceding cultures and culture of the time were steeped in myth. People related to myth as a reality. Myth was the order of the day as far as ancient peoples were concerned, and there were many. Even the Judaic culture/people had undergone Hellenization - prior to and during the era of Julius Caesar. However, myths sometimes aren't considered myth after the process of historicization. They often evolve into religions, as still happens now. Old religions fade back into myth too. As still happens now.

Especially when the history fails, is seen for the myth that it is, or has been altered.

That doesn't mean there wasn't a once living character behind the legend or myth, only that the "legend" was just a regular human behind it all.




Right?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#713479 Apr 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
One question: How did you put a vase on a source?
You need a sturdy source to produce the foundation.

Oh. If it is cheap, you call it a "vase". If it is expensive, pronounce it "vaas"
ChristINSANITY is EVIL

Windsor, Canada

#713480 Apr 8, 2014
gort wrote:
<quoted text>
not one error in the new testament. why not rely upon it? something wrong with you?
Lay off the Drugs pricki!

“Faith = Trust”

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#713481 Apr 8, 2014
scaritual wrote:
What did the Jesus! write or was said to have written?
Nothing.
Assumption fallacy. You're assuming Jesus should've written something. Why are you assuming that? What is the base argument for that position?
scaritual wrote:
What verified historical events can the Jesus be directly tied to?
His ministry, death, and resurrection. The most pivotal event in human history.

Four gospels that are internally consistent weren't written as religious texts. They were written as historical texts. Ask me how I know. I'll be glad to tell you.

As an atheist, you will go to more lengths to disregard Jesus than any other historical person.

Pick any other historical figure and dispute their existence.

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#713482 Apr 8, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Catcher1Rocco.....
~sniggers
I'm still waiting for you to show me a Rocco post from San Francisco.

You can't?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#713483 Apr 8, 2014
Double Fine wrote:
You need a sturdy source to produce the foundation.
Oh. If it is cheap, you call it a "vase". If it is expensive, pronounce it "vaas"
It's only a vaaz if you sip your tea with your pinky up in the air.

Please don't say that you do.....

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#713484 Apr 8, 2014
Ghost Writer 2 You wrote:
This is very different than modern writing.
The change in writing biographies in the modern sense was a direct result of the invention of the Gutenburg printing press in approximately 1450.
Regardless of living from 100 BCE – 44 BCE, you'd almost think the history concerning Julius Caesar was done in a "modern sense".

There are details about Julius Caesar that relate much about the person as far as appearance and habits, likes, dislikes, etc...

How much hair did the Jesus have?

You've said those details don't matter, and yet, as seen in other descriptions of other historical characters of the same general period, there was at the least, some minimal descriptions or details.
Before the Gutenburg press, most everything was written by hand.
The Chinese did have their own version of a press about 1048 A.D. but it was the Gutenburg press that revolutionized the way books were authored. Writers had more time to research and include details in their works than before the press was invented. Such details as physical appearance became standard features in writing after that time.
And to affirm the historicity of Jesus, one only needs to read the secular accounts to know it's true. The reason for this is that Tacitus was regarded as one of Rome's finest historians. Everything we know of the Caesars,(Julius, Augustus, Claudius) and those who came after, comes from a single source; Tacitus.
Actually there are more sources about those Roman characters you've mentioned, nevertheless...

Tacitus wrote much about those and other figures, plus deities that you reject.

However, Tacitus wrote - about a paragraph concerning alleged followers - and a few lines about the mythic Jesus character.

As far as Josephus, he wrote even less than Tacitus about the Jesus!, and he wrote much more about historical persons and - other deities that you reject too - more than the Jesus!

But you rule those deities out, even though the writer(S) you trust wrote about those other deities, more.
The much debated TF of Josephus is a credible document, even with the interpolation.
That's disputed and for good reason.
The interpolation was not a dishonest attempt to insert a historical figure. The interpolation was an honest attempt to correct misconceptions about that historical figure.
That's conjecture.

Perhaps the interpolation was blatantly dishonest. Perhaps it was an attempt by a well meaning scribe to right what he felt didn't represent what he believed, but believed that to be true, so he changed it.

Perhaps...

All that can be done is speculate about those details.




Certainly.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#713485 Apr 8, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all.
1. There are equal opportunity attacks.
2. I consider particular atheists to be angry.
3. I think the anger is directed at religion and not the deity.The intent is to enflame the believers and it is acheived by insulting the deity as a tool to acheive that end.
4. I'm not angry at anyone at the moment.
5. I don't see a need for quid pro quo insults, ever. Unfortunately at times we are all dragged into it.
Okay, good point. Yes. Anger is directed at the system, not the deity.

If I may give some insight:

I have no beef with what you believe. Nor do I have any problem with the belief of muslims, buddhists, scientologists. I could not care any less. I would never want a law to be passed to stop you from praying to the deity you worship.

However, I do get sick of the religious people (and it is not just Christians) that try and establish laws on Bronze age mythology. Go ask any secular humanist whether he or she have any problems with gay marriage. I do not think you would find one who says "yes". Go ask any sexular humanist whether he or she has a problem with interracial marriage. Same thing. Go ask any secular humanist whether religions should be surpressed with force, answer would be no.

Now, you have the religious factions trying to bring their ideology into science class. How many trials were there to get Creationism and ID into the classroom? Do you not think that some citizens should take a stand against this?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#713486 Apr 8, 2014
Freebird USA wrote:
<quoted text>
A handful of these people clearly represent a radical fringe element who are motivated by anger and powerlessness. Their only goals are to belong to a group for affirmation and to lash out at their perceived tormentors.They have a seemingly pathological need to proudly display their intellects. This is apparent in the assortment of Screen names and slogans accompanying them.
Internet threads are the only outlet where some would dare to address others as they do with blantant disrespect complete with personal insults. These are mentally unstable people who feed their egos by victimizing whoever happens to be handy.Some have clearly been damaged early on and never recovered.
Man, you sure have a harsh opinion of yourself.

Only a few on here have those characteristics....you may be one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 3 min RiversideRedneck 100,707
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min New Age Spiritual... 670,393
No Walls! Don't fence Me In! 4 min Tony 30
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 11 min Tony 6,148
the telomere 1 hr Kimberly2017 3
secret weapon contributing to global chaos...pa... 1 hr Kimberly2017 6
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 3 hr waaasssuuup 445,657
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) Wed Pegasus 286,455
More from around the web