Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[Ponderer]

This crap again... you can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. Its up to you to provide evidence for existence. The fact you are unable to is evidence of non existence. Ie, the evidence of non existence is your inability to prove existence

So the inability to prove that something exists be proof that it does not exist?

 

[rietrot]

This crap again... you can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist.

Actually you can on that things own mythology.

Some god lives on top of a mountain, we can climb the mountain and see there's nothing there. 1 eliminated. A few more to go.

 

[Moosedrool]

The "religious" tag/part (of "religious belief") is arbitrary.
The point is that Atheism is purely a belief.

Is it a (scientifically proven) fact that GOD exists?
No - its a belief.
Is it a (scientifically proven) fact that GOD does not exist?
No - its a belief.
Is that belief a religious belief?
No matter how that belief is labelled, it does not change the fact that it's a belief.

But you're not understanding science at all. Atheism isn't claiming "it's a scientifically proven fact that a deity does not exist" actually.

There is just no supporting evidence for such a creature and given our understanding of nature makes it highly unlikely for a deity to exist.

Science does however disprove the bible on many occasions.

So sure there might be a 0.0000001% chance a deity of some sort existing but definitely not the one from the bible.

 

[EADC]

Why is there a "Donate" button on the menu of the "atheists.org" website?

Why is God always broke?

 

[rietrot]

So the inability to prove that something exists be proof that it does not exist?

You are trapping yourself and just trolling with the silly word games.

 

[rietrot]

Why is God always broke?

That's contradicting most of your previous claims that religion is the biggest ponzi scheme ever.

 

[EADC]

That's contradicting most of your previous claims that religion is the biggest ponzi scheme ever.

It's not it's an asinine comment it's not mean to be serious.

The money goes to the preachers so they can have fancy cars and mega churches.

People are investing to get into heaven.

 

[Temujin]

So the inability to prove that something exists be proof that it does not exist?

No, you're not listening, and again, we've done this dozens of times.... your inability to provide evidence of existence is evidence of non existence. Again, you can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist as there would be no evidence of existence. You constantly claim science hasn't proven non existence, and want evidence of non existence, something that can never be provided, and use that as evidence of existence, when infact, your inability to provide evidence for existence, is just more evidence of non existence. You claim existence, you need to provide evidence, not the other way around.

 

[rietrot]

It's not it's an asinine comment it's not mean to be serious.

Yeah like everything else you've said so far in this thread. Thanks for admitting that. At least you are honest.

 

[EADC]

Yeah like everything else you've said so far in this thread. Thanks for admitting that. At least you are honest.

Do you really think this is meant to be serious? You can't reason with people who believe in fairy tales.

 

[rietrot]

No, you're not listening, and again, we've done this dozens of times.... your inability to provide evidence of existence is evidence of non existence.

This is just completely wrong.

 

[Ponderer]

But you're not understanding science at all. Atheism isn't claiming it's a scientifically proven fact that a deity does not exist actually.

There is just no supporting evidence for such a creature and given our understanding of nature makes it highly unlikely for a deity to exist.

Science does however disprove the bible on many occasions.

So sure there might be a 0.0000001% chance a deity of some sort exists but definitely not the one from the bible.

"But you're not understanding science at all."
I actually understand science quite well.

"There is just no supporting evidence for such a creature and given our understanding of nature makes it highly unlikely for a deity to exist."
Observing nature actually makes it quite compelling to conclude that a creator (deity) exists.

"Science does however disprove the bible on many occasions."
Science does not in any way disprove the bible on any occasion.

"So sure there might be a 0.0000001% chance a deity of some sort exists but definitely not the one from the bible."
Why not the one from the bible?

 

[Temujin]

This is just completely wrong.

Not at all, he wants evidence of non existence, the only evidence he will get for that is that he has no evidence of existence. That doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist

 

[noxibox]

The Jolly Heretic. At first I thought it was supposed to be some sort of parody. Does anyone actually take that guy seriously? Does he even believe what he is saying? If it is meant to be comedy he needs to work on his delivery.

Agnostics believe God(s) don't exist.

Atheists do not believe God(s) exist.

A small difference but one you seem utterly, utterly incapable of understanding.

The way most people misuse the word agnostic there is no difference between atheist and agnostic. In general people who say they're agnostic lack a belief in gods and are thus atheists. The proper usage of agnostic refers to knowledge, being able to know something. As in agnostic theist.

Where is the difference though, you moved the "don't" to opposite ends but the meaning is the same?

Most people who claim to be agnostic are atheists, so they are the same thing for those people.

Once you have kids you will realise how religion is indoctrinated from a very early age. We are not religious ourselves as parents, but our 6 year old knows all the basics of the Christian religion. This comes from creche, pre-primary, school and friends mostly. Grandparents will enforce the beliefs every now and then. Sometimes we as parents do as well without noticing. Because they need to understand "why" certain behaviour is bad, why grandpa died and where he is now, or why he needs to be good. Often the religious framework gets in so early it is easiest to just build around that.

He often asks random questions about what he heard at school etc. We just quickly tell him and leave it. He can decide for himself when he is older. But it is uncanning the similarities between religion and things like the tooth fairy, Santa, Easter bunny etc in kids.

Yes, it comes from all over. Although I can't imagine any need to make use of deities or religion to explain why some behaviour is bad, why someone died or to encourage good behaviour. I don't even know how I'd find out what behaviour any god expected or considered good. I'm certainly not going to trust books written long ago by humans who claimed, without a shred of evidence, that they had the inside track. There is simply nothing to build on.

When religious things came up I just told my children they were fairy stories. No different to any other myths and legends. Which is accurate.

 

[Ponderer]

You are trapping yourself and just trolling with the silly word games.

In what way am I trapping myself and/or trolling?
Its a valid question - not a silly word game.

 

[rietrot]

Not at all, he wants evidence of non existence, the only evidence he will get for that is that he has no evidence of existence. That doesn't mean it does or doesn't exist

#722 and what you said is still completely wrong.

First we theorise if something exist, before we have evidence. Then it gets tested.

We can proof that something doesn't exist if we can't find that thing were it is supposed to be.

 

[Moosedrool]

"But you're not understanding science at all."
I actually understand science quite well.

No you obviously don't since there isn't a peer reviewed paper saying that it's a scientifically proven fact that a deity does not exist. Nor would any scientists make such a claim.

"There is just no supporting evidence for such a creature and given our understanding of nature makes it highly unlikely for a deity to exist."
Observing nature actually makes it quite compelling to conclude that a creator (deity) exists.

No it doesn't, In fact the more you observe and understand reality and natural phenomena the less room it gives for a God.

"Science does however disprove the bible on many occasions."
Science does not in any way disprove the bible on any occasion.

Are you serious?

Dinosaurs.
No great flood.
Evolution.
The scale of the universe.
Snakes can't talk.
What is really in the heavens.
etc etc...

"So sure there might be a 0.0000001% chance a deity of some sort exists but definitely not the one from the bible."
Why not the one from the bible?

lol

 

[Ponderer]

No, you're not listening, and again, we've done this dozens of times.... your inability to provide evidence of existence is evidence of non existence. Again, you can't prove something that doesn't exist doesn't exist as there would be no evidence of existence. You constantly claim science hasn't proven non existence, and want evidence of non existence, something that can never be provided, and use that as evidence of existence, when infact, your inability to provide evidence for existence, is just more evidence of non existence. You claim existence, you need to provide evidence, not the other way around.

The inability to prove something to be true does not imply that it is false.
In order to prove something to be true, it must be proven to be true.
The inability to prove something to be false does not imply that it is true.
In order to prove something to be false, it must be proven to be false.

How can Atheists argue that the burden of proof is for Theists to prove that GOD exists when it can equally be argued that the burden of proof is for Atheists to prove that GOD does not exist.
The belief that GOD does not exist is as much a belief that GOD exists.

Get it?

 

[Temujin]

#722 and what you said is still completely wrong.

First we theorise if something exist, before we have evidence. Then it gets tested.

We can proof that something doesn't exist if we can't find that thing were it is supposed to be.

I see what you're saying, yes, my wording is wrong there yes, should have explained it better, but that is roughly what I mean... something that doesn't exist will not leave evidence of its non existence, it simply just 'isn't'. When looked for, we don't find what we should. The inability to find evidence of existence is itself evidence of non existence, but even so, neither are proof of existence or non existence.

 

[Moosedrool]

#722 and what you said is still completely wrong.

First we theorise if something exist, before we have evidence. Then it gets tested.

We can proof that something doesn't exist if we can't find that thing were it is supposed to be.

Where is God supposed to be?

I mean the more we know about the world the more tricky and hidden this God becomes. XD

~Sends a rocket up looking for god above the "firmament". "God are you here?" No apparently that's all a figure of speech.