A question for athiests

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, for your argument to have any validity it's up to you to prove the existence of god (which was an unstated premise/assumption in your argument). Seeing as you haven't done that, your argument is invalid.

I disagree.

God already proved Himself.

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Just like my Mariana Trench example, you do not have to go there yourself in order to believe it exists --- all you have to do is have faith in the paperwork.

And I do not have to go back in time to see God in action for myself --- all I have to do is have faith in the Paperwork.

To put it another way, God convinced a generation of people of His existence.

That generation documented this proof, and God has preserved It through the ages.

Do you need to go back in time and actually observe Christopher Columbus before you will believe he sailed to America?

 

[CoderHead]

I don't believe I'm a Homo sapiens. So...?

I'm starting to agree...

Just like my Mariana Trench example, you do not have to go there yourself in order to believe it exists --- all you have to do is have faith in the paperwork.

And I do not have to go back in time to see God in action for myself --- all I have to do is have faith in the Paperwork.

Except that one stack of paperwork is based off of credible, realistic observations and reproducible testing using highly accurate instrumentation. The other stack is based on claims of supernatural powers, disregard for the laws of the physical world, and refusal to produce evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that one stack of paperwork is based off of credible, realistic observations and reproducible testing using highly accurate instrumentation.

So Columbus did --- or did not --- sail the ocean blue?

 

[quatona]

So Columbus did --- or did not --- sail the ocean blue?

Whether he did or not is not of any significance for the way I live. Actually, it isn´t any skin off my nose either way.
If you can say the same about you and your god we can agree that these questions are on equal footing, and that I worship the idea that Columbus sailed the ocean in the way you worship your god.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whether he did or not is not of any significance for the way I live. Actually, it isn´t any skin off my nose either way.

But if you said Columbus didn't sail the ocean blue, you would be wrong --- wouldn't you?

 

[Suplux]

So Columbus did --- or did not --- sail the ocean blue?

So do you - or do you not - see the HUGE differences between the evidence presented for Columbus, The Mariana Trench, and for god?

They really can't even be compared. The "evidence" for god includes an old, VERY contradictory book written by god knows who (excuse the pun).

The evidence for the Mariana trench include, as I look google images, pictures from space, from under the water, and on a world globe not to mention hundreds of other sources.

Seems a bit more convincing, no?

Also, the existence of the Mariana trench can't really be used to effectively manipulate people and gain control of vast resources including the human mind. God (and religion) on the other hand...

 

[AV1611VET]

The "evidence" for god includes an old, VERY contradictory book written by god knows who (excuse the pun).

That 'very contradictory book', as you call It, is actually 66 books in one.

66 books, written over a period of 1500 years, by 40-some [human] authors, in 3 different languages, and on 3 different continents, under a variety of conditions from peacetime to wartime.

We're not dealing with just one book --- we're dealing with a whole library of history.

Let me ask you a tougher question:

Can you 'prove" --- that's prove --- it is 2009?

 

[CoderHead]

Can you 'prove" --- that's prove --- it is 2009?

No, not any more than you can prove 12 inches is a foot. Years and feet are conceptual units of measure implemented to describe a certain, standardized length of time (as defined by the Earth's course around the sun) or distance. Are we in a year formally acknowledged by pretty much the entire world as 2009? Yes, you bet. Is this actually the year 2009? Maybe...but we have to establish at what point we're relating the past 2009 years. Since we all call this year 2009, I'd say we've done that. Just because it hasn't been 2,009 years since...I dunno, the beginning of everything in the universe doesn't mean anything.

Apples to oranges.

And to answer your other question: I don't care if Columbus sailed the ocean or not. Since we live in North America, it's inconsequential.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't care if Columbus sailed the ocean or not. Since we live in North America, it's inconsequential.

Do you care that 'Madam Curie' anagrams to 'radium came'?

 

[CoderHead]

Do you care that 'Madam Curie' anagrams to 'radium came'?

Not even a little bit. Does it matter to you that Jesus Christ anagrams to "Such jest, sir?"

 

[Suplux]

You can continue on with those questions but eventually you will have to understand that the burden of proof is on the person or group who asserts the claim.

Until that burden is satisfied, your earlier post is fallacious and therefore we don't necessarily worship anything, let alone nature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not even a little bit. Does it matter to you that Jesus Christ anagrams to "Such jest, sir?"

No.

 

[CoderHead]

No.

Sweet. No, wait. What did this have to do with anything at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

You can continue on with those questions but eventually you will have to understand that the burden of proof is on the person or group who asserts the claim.

Once again, that 'burden of proof' was met (and exceeded) in the first century:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

 

[AV1611VET]

Sweet. No, wait. What did this have to do with anything at all?

Just a commercial break ---

 

[CoderHead]

AV, I'm not just trying to bust your butt when I say this, but using the Bible to validate the Bible is one of the silliest things I've heard. Nobody's disputing that the Bible says the Bible is true. Nobody at all.

The problem is meshing the Bible with real life. What are these infallible proofs? How can we test/observe/repeat them? This stuff was 2,000 years ago.

 

[Suplux]

God says the bible is the word of god. The bible says that god is real.

It's called circular reasoning. I'm sure your next post will contain the "proof" you talked about, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

God says the bible is the word of god. The bible says that god is real.

It's called circular reasoning. I'm sure your next post will contain the "proof" you talked about, right?

Our motto is: God said it --- that settles it.

People must think we're kidding when we say that.

 

[The Nihilist]

Guys, y'all are new around here, so I'll let you in on a little secret: DO NOT argue with AV. Instead, try to figure out whether he is just being ironic.

 

[Suplux]

Regardless, it certainly says something when such stupid comments can be taken seriously. Point being, it is impossible to distinguish between his ironic posts and those of most theists. Interesting in my opinion.