B
Junior Member
Expect Us
Posts: 74
|
Post by B on Nov 22, 2011 15:11:29 GMT
^^^^^
Pretty sure the THEISTS are claiming that their gods exist?
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 22, 2011 18:20:13 GMT
The bottom line is whether to believe Jesus or not. Why would he lie? Jesus has never said anything to me. All I have are accounts written about him after his death that have been translated twice. Those telling the accounts might wish to lie because storytellers tend to in order to male their story more interesting. They also may have been looking to influence the behavior of those they were telling their stories to. The Catholics who translated the new testament from Greek and Aramaic into Latin had political agendas and also ere fallible humans who may have made errors. King James had a political agenda when he translated the bible from Latin into English. His scribes also may have made mistakes. This leaves a lot of possibility for falsehood, whether intentional or accidental, without question the veracity of the words of Emmanuel himself.
|
|
|
Post by ungod on Nov 23, 2011 7:06:50 GMT
Theists would say that the universe and life is evidence of a Creator. If that sounds crazy, isn't it just as crazy to say that it decided to create itself?.. Yeah, and even crazier is to admit that WE JUST DON'T KNOW! Of course, it's no crazier than claiming the existence of an invisible being that needed no creator.
|
|
|
Post by cuckingfunt on Nov 25, 2011 0:08:44 GMT
Atheists have to prove that there's no god. Otherwise shut the fuck up.
|
|
timo
Newbie
oyeme
Posts: 37
|
Post by timo on Nov 25, 2011 19:26:50 GMT
Atheists have to prove that there's no god. Otherwise shut the fuck up. Which god do we have to disprove? Over the course of human history there have been tens of thousands of gods that people have followed. And even today there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, neo-Pagans, Animists, etc. And even among a given group, there's still often times some pretty vast differences in how they would define god. My cousin, for example, goes to one of those wishy washy Unitarian churches. Their god strikes me as a bit different than the god of the Pentecostals down the block. And yet they're all ostensibly Christians. I mean, do you think that every person that claims to believe in a god believes in the same sort of god that you do? With this being the case, I fail to see why it isn't perfectly reasonable for a person to think to themselves, "until one of these groups actually provides some evidence that supports their belief system, I see no reason to believe their claims myself." I have a hard time seeing why this should be thought of as a strange way of thinking about things. I mean, with no evidence to support any of them, it would seem that they're all on equal footing in which case the existence of Quetzalcoatl is equally as likely as Yahweh and the existence of either is highly unlikely. Of course, most followers of Yahweh, be they Christian, Jew or Muslim would tend to think that there is indeed more evidence for Yahweh than for Quetzalcoatl. It would seem therefore that it's their job to provide that evidence if they want to be the least bit convincing.
|
|
Bayes
Full Member
Posts: 206
|
Post by Bayes on Nov 25, 2011 20:54:00 GMT
Atheists have to prove that there's no god. Otherwise shut the fuck up. Which god do we have to disprove? Over the course of human history there have been tens of thousands of gods that people have followed. And even today there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, neo-Pagans, Animists, etc. And even among a given group, there's still often times some pretty vast differences in how they would define god. My cousin, for example, goes to one of those wishy washy Unitarian churches. Their god strikes me as a bit different than the god of the Pentecostals down the block. And yet they're all ostensibly Christians. I mean, do you think that every person that claims to believe in a god believes in the same sort of god that you do? With this being the case, I fail to see why it isn't perfectly reasonable for a person to think to themselves, "until one of these groups actually provides some evidence that supports their belief system, I see no reason to believe their claims myself." I have a hard time seeing why this should be thought of as a strange way of thinking about things. I mean, with no evidence to support any of them, it would seem that they're all on equal footing in which case the existence of Quetzalcoatl is equally as likely as Yahweh and the existence of either is highly unlikely. Of course, most followers of Yahweh, be they Christian, Jew or Muslim would tend to think that there is indeed more evidence for Yahweh than for Quetzalcoatl. It would seem therefore that it's their job to provide that evidence if they want to be the least bit convincing. I assert there is more evidence for Quetzalcoatl. He showed up when he was prophesied to and that was within the past 300 years and documented in a far more immediate manner than Christ's arrival, which is debated as to whether or not it was actually Yawheh's arrival.
|
|
|
Post by Magilla on Nov 29, 2011 0:45:02 GMT
. . . I see. You want theists to prove it, so you can then apply your blinkered view. You're not asking for proof, you're asking for an excuse to reinforce your belief system. If you really wanted proof you'd seek it yourself. Stop being so lazy. If there were a PROOF, then it would be undeniable. If there's undeniable PROOF one way or another, give it up to us, or else . . . Atheists have to prove that there's no god. Otherwise shut the fuck up. Equally: theists have to prove that there's a god - otherwise shut up too???
|
|