Burden of proof on us?!

[chris4243]

Ok, recently I have read in a thread somewhere that the burden of proof on the topic of deities is apparently on atheists! Can someone please explain to me how this is the case?

I started a thread on a slightly similar note:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7554035/

In this thread, I reject the claim that cows exist and demand that the cowists (who believe cows exist) provide proof of the existence of these strange creatures. Until then, I'm an acowist.

Now, as to burden of proof: is the burden of proof on the cowists, since they're making the positive claim, or on the acowists, since they're doubting/going against generally accepted knowledge?

 

[mulimulix]

I started a thread on a slightly similar note:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7554035/

In this thread, I reject the claim that cows exist and demand that the cowists (who believe cows exist) provide proof of the existence of these strange creatures. Until then, I'm an acowist.

Now, as to burden of proof: is the burden of proof on the cowists, since they're making the positive claim, or on the acowists, since they're doubting/going against generally accepted knowledge?

It is still on the people with the cows. The problem with this is that it is not practical. 99.9999% of all people have seen a cow and the ones who haven't have seen pictures of them and/or have heard people talk about them.

I know what you are saying, and of course it is ok for the cowist to ask the acowist why he doesn't believe in cows (like in religion) and if the acowist says there is no evidence for it, the cowist would show the evidence and if the acowist still resists, there is nothing more you can do.

 

[contango]

Ok, recently I have read in a thread somewhere that the burden of proof on the topic of deities is apparently on atheists! Can someone please explain to me how this is the case?

I have no doubt that this would have been brought up before, but I would like an up to date thread on it.

I always reckon that the burden of convincing is on the person attempting to do the convincing.

In other words if I, as a Christian, encourage you, as an atheist, to change your mind and believe in God then I need to convince you that there's a good reason to change your mind. Likewise if you encourage me to change my mind then you need to convince me.

To argue the reverse requires us to justify our position every time someone presents an alternative, with the associated implication that we will change our viewpoint unless we can provide a compelling reason against it.

 

[Dragons87]

It is still on the people with the cows. The problem with this is that it is not practical. 99.9999% of all people have seen a cow and the ones who haven't have seen pictures of them and/or have heard people talk about them.

I know what you are saying, and of course it is ok for the cowist to ask the acowist why he doesn't believe in cows (like in religion) and if the acowist says there is no evidence for it, the cowist would show the evidence and if the acowist still resists, there is nothing more you can do.

I think you sum it up nicely. There is ample "proof" out there that God exists; it's just that you don't accept our "proof" as your "proof".

I probably can do more to try to prove that God exists, but it's quite difficult to do over a computer screen...

 

[mulimulix]

I think you sum it up nicely. There is ample "proof" out there that God exists; it's just that you don't accept our "proof" as your "proof".

I probably can do more to try to prove that God exists, but it's quite difficult to do over a computer screen...

I'm sorry, I don't know if you misunderstood me, but I certainly do not believe there is ample proof anywhere for any god's existence.

 

[begt]

"It's crazy. So crazy you have to refute your authority before you can even make your statement just in case He does exist and you get proven wrong one day! You can't just make God go away by ignoring Him. You can make up a false impression of God by ignoring Him or only listening partially to what He says but that's totally different. God exists whether you accept it or not, and you can only know the truth about Him if you accept His terms. If you don't want to know the truth about God then why bother arguing? It must drive you atheist's crazy though to see all these joyful Christians bopping around saying how much they love Jesus.. Burden of proof? I guess it falls on whoever wants to be correct, therefore the seeker or the preacher."

I'm not the crazy one. You assert that god exist when there's no evidence of it. I'm not ignoring god, I don't believe that he exists so how can I ignore him then?!?! Asserting that something exists without evidence is crazy. If a god existed and wanted to spread christianity he would simply reveal himself or in other ways make it crystal clear to everyone in the world that he exists. So far none of that has happened. It would be evil and deceptive of him to conceal himself and then pass judgement on people that were not indoctrinated when they were kids. Besides why would an omnipotent being need worship from small insignificant human beings? That's just pathetic, perverse, senseless and evil. It would be like a grown man playing with 3-year old children and require that they worship him or something. The difference of course would be that the difference in intellect and other powers would be even bigger between grown ups and an omnipotent god.

Think about what I've just written, it makes perfect sense.

" It must drive you atheist's crazy though to see all these joyful Christians bopping around saying how much they love Jesus"

What bothers me is that human beings can be manipulated and indoctrinated so easily. That's the scary part. If you really want there to be a god then the mind can play tricks on you so that you finally believe it.
This is what has happened to many people in North Korea. People there have, since a very young age, been taught that Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are gods, they have been forced to repeat this over and over again. Many genuinely believe this to be the truth.

I don't envy christians, they tend to get divorced more often, end up in jail more often. Also in America they tend to have lower education than atheists.

 

[elman]

"
I don't envy christians, they tend to get divorced more often, end up in jail more often. Also in America they tend to have lower education than atheists.

I don't think I will accept this as true until you prove it.

 

[elman]

=begt;57398824]"It does if you claim non exitence is a fact." I don't claim absolute certainty, but for all practical purposes god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

For all practical purposes God does exist until you prove otherwise.

"Claiming we exist for a reason is not the same as claiming a giant teapot is in orbit."

What's the difference?

We can look for the teapot, but looking for the reason we exist is a little bit more difficult to find or to even find it is not there. Also the existence of a teapot is not relevant to our lives, but a reason or lack of reason for our existence is relevant.

" Good, then neither of us claim anything can be proven and neither of us has any burden of proof." ehh, what?

If no one is claiming they can prove something, then no one has any burden of proof.

"Your assumption that an assumption that we exist for a reason has no evidence of rational thinking behind it, is an incorrect assumption. " Of course we exist for a reason. But that reason is most likely not god.

If there is no Creator, who is the one to whom our existence matters, after the human species becomes extinct?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm sorry, I don't know if you misunderstood me, but I certainly do not believe there is ample proof anywhere for any god's existence.

Did you read the cowist thread? Do you realize you're perfectly proving the posters point?

You won't believe in God regardless of any evidence presented because the evidence presented isn't "real" evidence to you.

Furthermore, I think there is more to life than logic and rationalism. There are certain things that go beyond measured arguments and well-constructed propositions.

When you receive a hug from a loved one and you feel truly loved and in that one moment all rationalism goes out the window because you're not thinking, "Wow, this hug feels good because my brain is receiving certain neurotransmitters and we all know that this hug from this loved one is just an evolved social norm which has no objective significance and likely came about in order advance my genes and species by building better social units."

The same could be said of almost any moment of joy or ecstasy or happiness in life. When you're in the moment, logic, rationalism, scientism and reason generally aren't the first and foremost things that come to mind.

And so I think to say that human reason and logic is to be totally relied on in every instance is a false assumption. I cannot provide proof of God's existence because God is not human and God is not necessarily logical by human standards.

It is irrational and illogical to hold a belief in God because, via science, most experiences and arguments can be chalked up to evolutionary biology, brain chemistry or social evolution. I think science describes these very well but I don't think its the complete picture of the universe.

Scientific evidence (which is what you're looking for) is only one facet of evidence. Our current culture gives such significance to such evidence because we live in a modernist world.

 

[begt]

"I don't think I will accept this as true until you prove it."

You can check one of the most popular "atheist" videos on youtube watch?v=fdVucvo-kDU

And another one on the same theme: If all atheists left America.. watch?v=mbef07aQtB8

"For all practical purposes God does exist until you prove otherwise."

What a ridiculous thing to say. Nothing super-natural has ever been proven. Of course the one who claims super-natural things has the burden of proof. That's the only scientifically reasonable perspective. If a scientist were to publish some super-natural ideas that would explain x don't you think other scientists would expect him to back it up?

Science, btw, is the reason many of us are here in the first place. It has eliminated small pox, tripled the life expectancy, feeds 1/3 of the world through the Haber-Bosch process, countless innovations etc. Science is one of the few things we humans have created that has an astonishly good track record.

" We can look for the teapot, but looking for the reason we exist is a little bit more difficult to find or to even find it is not there. Also the existence of a teapot is not relevant to our lives, but a reason or lack of reason for our existence is relevant."

When a scientific inquiry is done such emotional thoughts cannot be included. Then you're not being objective. I just don't see how you can justify the idea that belief in god is warranted without evidence. It makes no sense at all. This universe as we see it could be the creation of a computer program. We could be living in a world like the Matrix. Who knows? If so no god is needed to explain it.

Moreover you seem to think that there's only one god. Why only 1? Why not 10 or 10 000 you have absolutely no evidence for any of them. You are just biased by your christian beliefs to think that there's one creator.

"If no one is claiming they can prove something, then no one has any burden of proof."

We'll IF christians claim that they can prove something they have their work cut out for them. So far no convincing evidence has been provided.

"If there is no Creator, who is the one to whom our existence matters, after the human species becomes extinct?" Why has there to be someone to whom our existence matters? We humans are anything but perfect, and would seem to be very flawed to a perfect being like a god. Even let's say imaginary aliens with superior technology than us, but still not that advanced, would think that we're very stupid for a number of reasons. We go to war all the time, destroy the environment etc.

 

[Jarnold4108]

I love how every single atheist alive uses the word 'prove' or that it has to be solved by 'science'.

We do not have to prove what we feel. Just like we don't ask you to go out and prove that you love your wife or girlfriend. Does it make us wrong that there isn't a physical God in front of me today? Science is not the end all, be all. Scientists have been wrong more times than right throughout the history of man ... half the theories tossed around have very little facts supporting them. But, since the people that developed them were 'smart' they must be true! Humanity being created by a primortial ooze or whatever it is? Every thing on earth being created from a single celled organism? Mmk. Prove it?

You can find proof of a God in every day experiences and stories you hear everywhere -- but -- you'll choose to ignore it because, scientifically, it doesn't make sense.

- The life of Jesus Christ. Even non-believers wrote about a man named Jesus who walked the Earth and did miracles. Atheists, Jews, etc have written about this man. But, we'll just question his existence because it's easier.

- Tons of people have had near death experiences or 'seen the light' and written about it and talked about it, but -- it cannot be explained. So, it must be a hallucination - because, well, there is no God. Can't be! Yes people from other religions encounter these same things ... they claim they saw God. Their God. How do we know we're not all seeing the same God? Just because our religion may have been changed throughout history does not mean that God doesn't exist ... he wouldn't abandon a loving person because they have been misguided in religion. Doesn't surprise me people from all religions see a 'light' or 'God'.

Every one of them must be hallucinating though.

- I've seen stories of an entire churches burning down, but -- the only thing that makes it out is the bible, unscathed. Pure coincidence surely. God chooses when to make his grace known, he doesn't owe us anything -- that's the point of FAITH. It's about believing in something even though it cannot be proven. That's the definition. Amazing, huh?

- I just read a story recently of a kid that was almost deemed dead. He saw 'God'. This God introduced him to his brother(I believe it was). He didn't have a brother ... except that his mother had miscarried years before he was even born - it was a boy and she never talked to her son about it. How did he know this all of a sudden? Publicity stunt! Has to be!


You can find examples of a God in your every day life and in stories you hear everywhere. But, atheists will choose to ignore them. Why don't you hear them every day? Because instead of looking you probably listen to our media -- the negative media where nothing good or positive makes it. Try looking and you'll find some pretty 'weird' or amazing things out there.

 

[begt]

"I love how every single atheist alive uses the word 'prove' or that it has to be solved by 'science'." Well because it matters and it works. Try to live for a week without the benefits that science has provided you. It would be tougher than you think.

"Scientists have been wrong more times than right throughout the history of man ... half the theories tossed around have very little facts supporting them. But, since the people that developed them were 'smart' they must be true! Humanity being created by a primortial ooze or whatever it is? Every thing on earth being created from a single celled organism? Mmk. Prove it?"

Of course many hypotheses are rejected and some are accepted over time. That's just how it works. But just because science doesn't get it right immediatly each and every time doesn't mean that we should abandon it.

Who says that all the hypotheses has to be true just because smart people have invented them? I'm not one of them at least... DNA is certainly some evidence that we originated from single celled organisms. We can also show how protobionts can be formed so it's much more reasonable than believing in gods.

Who or what made an omnipotent being come into existence? That's far far more unlikely than us originating from single-celled organisms. Btw a truly omnipotent being is by definition impossible. An omnipotent being cannot destroy himself completly and then recreate himself, or create a bigger rock than he can lift...

"
- The life of Jesus Christ. Even non-believers wrote about a man named Jesus who walked the Earth and did miracles. Atheists, Jews, etc have written about this man. But, we'll just question his existence because it's easier." Not because it's easiter, but because it's the only thing that makes sense. What if I tell you I'm absolutely convinced I've seen a ghost or a pink unicorn. Why should you believe me? There's no reason to do so without evidence. It all comes down to reason and evidence.

All sorts of unlikely stories have been written down by people other than the ones directly involved. Countless stories of ghosts or other super-natural beings etc. It doesn't make it true. Any claim of something super-natural would require extraordinary evidence.

"- I've seen stories of an entire churches burning down, but -- the only thing that makes it out is the bible, unscathed. Pure coincidence surely. God chooses when to make his grace known, he doesn't owe us anything -- that's the point of FAITH. It's about believing in something even though it cannot be proven. That's the definition. Amazing, huh?"

Not very convincing. God the great mathematician thinking that faith is a virtue? Makes no sense (I think such a god would think it a better idea to fart in public, at least that can be good for your stomach: faith has no merit). You can point to whatever unlikely event you want. I'm sure that there are plenty of cases where churches have been destroyed by natural disasters (Theodicy) etc. If I believe in the god of the ol' mighty potato and a potato is the only thing left after a hurricane, does that prove the existence of the mighty potato? No, it just means that unlikely events happen because they're unlikely, not impossible. If I believe in the god of the ol' mighty hurricane stricken wal-mart plastic chair and find a hurricane stricken chair after a hurricane, does that prove it's existence?...Well I guess you can see where I'm going. Bibles are not that rare and the same goes for plastic chairs from Wal-mart.

Something I've come across is that many religious people have a poor understanding of probabilities, and that makes them think miracles are happening to them daily. If they meet someone with the same birthday as them they see it as a sign, when in fact you only have to meet 23 people to make it more likely than not that you share the same birthday.

**
Near-death experiences are interesting. But I think it mainly shows what happens to humans when we die. A lot of emotions are involved, in a semi-unconscious state, and the brain can trick you into believing stuff.

"Every one of them must be hallucinating though." Do you know how many people who have not seen a light during a near-death experience? Quess that would amount to quite a few people. And if you think you will see a light, during a near-death experience, chances are that you'll be inclined to think that you did.

"- I just read a story recently of a kid that was almost deemed dead. He saw 'God'. This God introduced him to his brother(I believe it was). He didn't have a brother ... except that his mother had miscarried years before he was even born - it was a boy and she never talked to her son about it. How did he know this all of a sudden? Publicity stunt! Has to be!"

This can happen by chance. Dreams/hallucinations can be tricky. Let's say the kid wanted to have a brother. He then hallucinates, his brain somehow connects a mighty character in the hallucination, that the kid thinks is a god, with his wish for having a brother. Well, you see such things can happen. It's not a miracle by any means.


" Try looking and you'll find some pretty 'weird' or amazing things out there." The danger lies in looking too hard so that your brain falls out"

It would be a very strange world if there were no unlikely events

 

[Jarnold4108]

Most of what you said is again, based no nothing of merit - sorry. How are you going to educate me on what a near-death experience is like? Many non-christians are the ones experiencing these faith awakening moments in these experiences ... why would a non-christian or an atheist 'expect' to a see a light with God in it? Likewise, why would an atheist or non-believer write about a man named Jesus that walked the Earth and performed miracles -- doesn't add up.

Who or what made an omnipotent being come into existence?

There was never a time where God wasn't existing. He has always been here. It's not for our little minds to comprehend, we're humans -- everything has to be black and white to us, a beginning and an end ... God is that beginning. The 'end' is finding him -- post life. "Something" had to make everything ... you can believe in the Big Bang theory or whatever you want ... I'll choose God. Or - maybe the Big Bang Theory and God go hand in hand ... maybe that was his grand plan to create everything he did? Why do science and God have to go against each other?

All sorts of unlikely stories have been written down by people other than the ones directly involved. Countless stories of ghost or other super-natural beings etc. It doesn't make it true. Any claim of something super-natural would require extraordinary evidence.

Why? Why does it need evidence? To satisfy your mind? Just because you deny it's existence does not mean it's not there. If you were to encounter or see an apparition -- you'd believe, no? But why? If there's no evidence outside of what you've seen and experienced - it shouldn't exist, correct? Than what did you see/experience?


This can happen by chance. Dreams/hallucinations can be tricky. Let's say the kid wanted to have a brother. He then hallucinates, his brain somehow connects a mighty character in the hallucination, that the kid thinks is a god, with his wish for having a brother. Well you see such things can happen. It's not a miracle by any means.

If that's what you need to tell yourself. He wanted a brother so bad, that whilst on his death bed(or so they thought), he encountered a God introducing him to his brother. I left out the part of the experience where he told God, "I don't have a brother," and he explained that this was his brother who died before birth. It was on CNN.com, I figured you would have looked into it. Maybe too positive for you?


Obviously, you have your mind set. However, something must be driving you to come to these message boards. Unless your entire objective is to argue with Christians, in which case - you really need a hobby!

 

[begt]

My main motive for coming here is to give you christians another perspective and make you think about these issues.

/begt

 

[Jarnold4108]

You don't think most of us, as grown adults, haven't fought with our faith at times? These same questions are posed to us throughout life and probably on a day to day basis.

There are explanations and reasons for them. However -- it's about opening your heart and mind to listen to them. I never considered myself a true Catholic or Christian until the last few years where I really turned my life to God and great things started to happen.

Have you ever wondered why most of the real believers and the people who 'practice what they preach' are always just so darn happy?

 

[begt]

"Why? Why does it need evidence? To satisfy your mind? Just because you deny it's existence does not mean it's not there. If you were to encounter or see an apparition -- you'd believe, no? But why? If there's no evidence outside of what you've seen and experienced - it shouldn't exist, correct? Than what did you see/experience?"

To determine whether or not it was real. That's why evidence is needed. I'm not denying anything for the sake of denying if that's what you believe. Sometimes I wish there was a god but it makes no sense to me.

It's really about what lifestyle you want to live. Should you demand evidence of people who come up with amazing claims of ghosts/gods or whatever, or should you just accept it? If no evidence is demanded what would life be like? Oh the devil stole my money so I can't pay my bills so therefor I don't have to pay anything... All sorts of silly claims would have to be accepted. Science would not work if all claims are accepted...

If I were to encounter what seems to be an apparition I'd be emotionally affected by the experience (needless to say I don't think it will happen). But if there was no other rational explaination that I or anyone else could come up with afterwards, then I'd draw the conclusion that it was an apparition.

 

[mulimulix]

I don't think I will accept this as true until you prove it.

It is fact that America's prison population contains only .2% or something like that, of Atheists when in the general population is much greater. As for education, I'm not sure, but I know countries with better education funding and high university graduate rates tend to be much more non-religious than America. E.g. Scandinavia has the best education system in the world (arguably) and are also the most non-religious countries in the world.

For all practical purposes God does exist until you prove otherwise.
We can look for the teapot, but looking for the reason we exist is a little bit more difficult to find or to even find it is not there. Also the existence of a teapot is not relevant to our lives, but a reason or lack of reason for our existence is relevant.

If no one is claiming they can prove something, then no one has any burden of proof.
If there is no Creator, who is the one to whom our existence matters, after the human species becomes extinct?

No! Saying that is like saying "Bigfoot exists, prove it wrong, or it is true."

Did you read the cowist thread? Do you realize you're perfectly proving the posters point?

You won't believe in God regardless of any evidence presented because the evidence presented isn't "real" evidence to you.

That is simply not true; bring some evidence and sure... And no, I did not prove the point. The acowist can EASILY be shown evidence for cows. As an atheist, I am yet to be shown evidence.

I love how every single atheist alive uses the word 'prove' or that it has to be solved by 'science'.

We do not have to prove what we feel. Just like we don't ask you to go out and prove that you love your wife or girlfriend. Does it make us wrong that there isn't a physical God in front of me today? Science is not the end all, be all. Scientists have been wrong more times than right throughout the history of man ... half the theories tossed around have very little facts supporting them. But, since the people that developed them were 'smart' they must be true! Humanity being created by a primortial ooze or whatever it is? Every thing on earth being created from a single celled organism? Mmk. Prove it?

Well, the fact is that everything to date in our natural world has been identified through science. It simply works! What are some of these theories with little evidence? I am yet to hear of them. Unless the evidence is peer-reviewed, it does not become a theory, so that is interesting.

You can find proof of a God in every day experiences and stories you hear everywhere -- but -- you'll choose to ignore it because, scientifically, it doesn't make sense.

- The life of Jesus Christ. Even non-believers wrote about a man named Jesus who walked the Earth and did miracles. Atheists, Jews, etc have written about this man. But, we'll just question his existence because it's easier.

I'm interested to know which non-believers wrote about Jesus, because one again, I have not heard of them. Were they primary or secondary sources?

- Tons of people have had near death experiences or 'seen the light' and written about it and talked about it, but -- it cannot be explained. So, it must be a hallucination - because, well, there is no God. Can't be! Yes people from other religions encounter these same things ... they claim they saw God. Their God. How do we know we're not all seeing the same God? Just because our religion may have been changed throughout history does not mean that God doesn't exist ... he wouldn't abandon a loving person because they have been misguided in religion. Doesn't surprise me people from all religions see a 'light' or 'God'.

Every one of them must be hallucinating though.

Ok, here's the thing:

A near-death experience, even though it has happened numerous times, would happen to maybe 1 in every 5000 near-death times for people. And yes, it's funny how these visions happen at a time when they are completely drugged up on morpheme and others, drugs which are known to create hallucinations. As I said earlier, if they had a vision of something completely random, no one would talk about it. Besides this, what about the people in other countries who have near death experiences of THEIR god(s)? Are they wrong?

- I've seen stories of an entire churches burning down, but -- the only thing that makes it out is the bible, unscathed. Pure coincidence surely. God chooses when to make his grace known, he doesn't owe us anything -- that's the point of FAITH. It's about believing in something even though it cannot be proven. That's the definition. Amazing, huh?

These stories are unverified and besides, who do you think started the fire anyway? Why didn't god stop the fire from starting in the first place? Because he would interfere with our free will? Will how is saving just ONE bible not interfering with our free will?

- I just read a story recently of a kid that was almost deemed dead. He saw 'God'. This God introduced him to his brother(I believe it was). He didn't have a brother ... except that his mother had miscarried years before he was even born - it was a boy and she never talked to her son about it. How did he know this all of a sudden? Publicity stunt! Has to be!

Well, obviously, I can't say what he actually did or didn't see, but why is a publicity stunt so out of the question? Seriously...A family, maybe in a tough financial situation, knows that if they come up with this miraculous story, they will get thousands from people like you who believe them.

 

[maizer]

"Why? Why does it need evidence? To satisfy your mind? Just because you deny it's existence does not mean it's not there. If you were to encounter or see an apparition -- you'd believe, no? But why? If there's no evidence outside of what you've seen and experienced - it shouldn't exist, correct? Than what did you see/experience?"

To determine whether or not it was real. That's why evidence is needed. I'm not denying anything for the sake of denying if that's what you believe. Sometimes I wish there was a god but it makes no sense to me.

It's really about what lifestyle you want to live. Should you demand evidence of people who come up with amazing claims of ghosts/gods or whatever, or should you just accept it? If no evidence is demanded what would life be like? Oh the devil stole my money so I can't pay my bills so therefor I don't have to pay anything... All sorts of silly claims would have to be accepted. Science would not work if all claims are accepted...

If I were to encounter what seems to be an apparition I'd be emotionally affected by the experience (needless to say I don't think it will happen). But if there was no other rational explaination that I or anyone else could come up with afterwards, then I'd draw the conclusion that it was an apparition.

The vast majority don't jump to conclusions as you seem to be alluding to. Faith in Christ, faith in love, it all comes during a long journey in which the first step is usually a skeptical 'alright, you might be there. I'll do what you say, show me yourself'.

 

[Jarnold4108]

Well, the fact is that everything to date in our natural world has been identified through science. It simply works! What are some of these theories with little evidence? I am yet to hear of them. Unless the evidence is peer-reviewed, it does not become a theory, so that is interesting.


Every-single-theory ever created can be countered with reasons why it simply doesn't work. Big Bang, Evolution, etc - the list goes on. It's theory for a reason - not fact.

I'm interested to know which non-believers wrote about Jesus, because one again, I have not heard of them. Were they primary or secondary sources?

The gospels? There are questions about the translations or the exact quotes of Jesus, but -- there's been little to dispute that they were first hand accounts.

Jewish writings(whom disliked Jesus and tried to discredit his sayings) never questioned his existence and did speak of him as a historical, physical person(Was Jesus a real person? - Page 5).

When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.” ... We talk about Jesus still today, for a reason. Most historical figures, especially back then are best remembered by word of mouth and 'future' writings anyway.

A near-death experience, even though it has happened numerous times, would happen to maybe 1 in every 5000 near-death times for people. And yes, it's funny how these visions happen at a time when they are completely drugged up on morpheme and others, drugs which are known to create hallucinations. As I said earlier, if they had a vision of something completely random, no one would talk about it. Besides this, what about the people in other countries who have near death experiences of THEIR god(s)? Are they wrong?

I have already addressed this question. But, I will again. How do we know the Jewish God is different than the Christian God? I'm more inclined to think it's our religion(led by man) that is telling us what God to pray to when in reality, they could very well be the same person. Also -- going back to the point ... why would an atheist be hoping or expecting a vision from God on their death bed? As for your other question(why doesn't God show himself to everyone) ... why does he have to? He expects all of us to believe, that's why he put Jesus here. On that same point, it's very close minded to immediately disregard it as drugs/morphine(when a lot of the times they aren't even on drugs and a lot of them are atheists).


These stories are unverified and besides, who do you think started the fire anyway? Why didn't god stop the fire from starting in the first place? Because he would interfere with our free will? Will how is saving just ONE bible not interfering with our free will?

Because God gave us free will and lets the world operate on it's own. Natural disasters or man made fires are not God condemning anything. It's the world happening and unfortunately, people will die. That's why you need God because you never know when your time comes.


Well, obviously, I can't say what he actually did or didn't see, but why is a publicity stunt so out of the question? Seriously...A family, maybe in a tough financial situation, knows that if they come up with this miraculous story, they will get thousands from people like you who believe them.


It was an article on CNN.com. They didn't make money off of it. However, if they did decide to write a book or what not, that does not mean it's a stunt. Lots of religious people share these types of experiences and that doesn't mean they are all 'stunts'. That would be a very negative point of view.


The bible and scriptures warn us that there will be people trying to use 'science' or other factors we cannot describe as a basis to deny his existence and people still doubt. I understand there's things that are hard to answer or that have 'holes' in them. Well, so does every other theory in the history of man -- except for gravity.

 

[mulimulix]

Every-single-theory ever created can be countered with reasons why it simply doesn't work. Big Bang, Evolution, etc - the list goes on. It's theory for a reason - not fact.

This shows your COMPLETE lack of understanding of the scientific method, and therefore, science in general. A theory is not some idea someone has thought of with no or little evidence to back it up. The word you are using as 'Theory' is in fact 'Hypothesis' in science. 'The Flat Earth Hypothesis' is a hypothesis because it doesn't have evidence to back it up. The Theory of Evolution means that it has had evidence to back it up as well as being peer-reviewed by countless other scientists. A 'Theory' is the furthest any 'Hypothesis' can go on the scientific method simply because absolute fact does not exist in the universe (except in maths); this is why they don't refer to it is a 'Fact'. Perhaps this will explain the scientific method to you, simply.

The gospels? There are questions about the translations or the exact quotes of Jesus, but -- there's been little to dispute that they were first hand accounts.

Little to dispute? The first gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus died!

When world historian H. G. Wells was asked who has left the greatest legacy on history, he replied, “By this test Jesus stands first.” ... We talk about Jesus still today, for a reason. Most historical figures, especially back then are best remembered by word of mouth and 'future' writings anyway.

I'm not disputing this, of course Jesus is probably the most well-known person throughout the world today. This doesn't mean anything. Harry potter is also known by hundreds of millions of people in the world. Something that is well-known doesn't give it any more credibility.

I have already addressed this question. But, I will again. How do we know the Jewish God is different than the Christian God? I'm more inclined to think it's our religion(led by man) that is telling us what God to pray to when in reality, they could very well be the same person. Also -- going back to the point ... why would an atheist be hoping or expecting a vision from God on their death bed? As for your other question(why doesn't God show himself to everyone) ... why does he have to? He expects all of us to believe, that's why he put Jesus here. On that same point, it's very close minded to immediately disregard it as drugs/morphine(when a lot of the times they aren't even on drugs and a lot of them are atheists).

The fact still remain, EVEN if an atheist did have a vision of god and he is telling the truth, it is completely unverifiable. The simplest explanation may not always be the correct one, but to me, the simplest explanation of someone/something talking to you in a hallucination isn't that it is god, but it is simply a hallucination. You never hear of people having hallucinations of completely random things which aren't god, but when they happen to include something which involves heaven, it is all of a sudden a certain message from god.

Because God gave us free will and lets the world operate on it's own. Natural disasters or man made fires are not God condemning anything. It's the world happening and unfortunately, people will die. That's why you need God because you never know when your time comes.

But he interfered by saving the bible. If he can interfere for the most trivial and unimportant of things like saving a bible, that is completely malevolent of him to let SO MANY bad things happen which are out of our control. At least create the Earth so these things don't happen, so he doesn't have a dilemma of whether to save people or not.

It was an article on CNN.com. They didn't make money off of it. However, if they did decide to write a book or what not, that does not mean it's a stunt. Lots of religious people share these types of experiences and that doesn't mean they are all 'stunts'. That would be a very negative point of view.

How do you know they didn't make money? I have seen on Amazon, many, many books about this exact same thing happening to people; they make fortunes off them.

The bible and scriptures warn us that there will be people trying to use 'science' or other factors we cannot describe as a basis to deny his existence and people still doubt. I understand there's things that are hard to answer or that have 'holes' in them. Well, so does every other theory in the history of man -- except for gravity.

The difference is that Science is constantly improving these theories, whereas the Bible has remained constant for 2000 years! The amount of knowledge that science has gained in that time in unbelievable. By knocking scientific theories, does that mean if you were in a hospital with, lets say, cancer, you would opt to not have treatment and simply let god heal you? It's called medical science.