Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Are God just a belief or disblief to you?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Burden of Proof is on Atheists
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
Do you understand how this is different from what you were arguing before?
Earlier, you argued that the fact that early Christians - within a few years of Jesus's death - believed that Jesus wasn't actually dead was evidence that he wasn't actually dead.
It was only when I pointed out another religion whose followers all started believing that their founder wasn't actually dead almost immediately after he was actually dead that you decided on this new argument.
If you want this conversation to continue, here's what I'll need from you: only make arguments you plan to stick to.
If you realize you made an error and realize it later, that's fine; just note it and we can move on. But if you think, for instance, that the beliefs of early Christians don't conclusively prove that the Resurrection happened, don't argue that they do.
Sound fair?
You gave the impression earlier that you were talking about the beliefs of early Christians generally, including those who didn't witness the Resurrection firsthand. Have you changed your mind?
FFS.
If you're going to argue that Christianity is the best religion, maybe educate yourself a litte bit about the basics of other religions.
Do you understand how this was different from what you were arguing before?
Who do you think:
- witnessed the Resurrection
- was willing to die for it, and
- provided us with reliable evidence that they did both of those two things?
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
There is God, and there is His Church. There are two things, not one.
Who has told to atheists that there is no slightest evidence for God or satan? Not Science, but their god - satan.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
No. They just dont believe in existence of God or Satan. Most atheists only belive in the physical world they can see with their physical eyes
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Atheism is not lack of belief then?
"Atheism is a lack of belief in gods" does not imply "atheists hold no beliefs."
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is absurd. Recall the law of non-contradiction. There is Science and logic, and there is religion/belief.
ppp
Well-Known Member
What's the supposed contradiction?
Cause that ain't it.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Disbeliever in no way a believer.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Atheism is no belief in spiritual or religious existence at all. In my understanding they just do not hold any belief in the "unseen"
What's absurd?
If you want me to understand what you're trying to say, you'll have to communicate more clearly.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Disbeliever in what is no way a believer in what?
ppp
Well-Known Member
While that might be mostly(?) true, I know plenty of people who do not believe that any gods exist, yet still believe that there are supernatural phenomenon. Divination, curses, spirits, etc.
Or freakin' homeopathy!
Last edited by a moderator:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It is incorrect to use religious term "belief" in Disbelief. Atheists is better to say "2+2=4" than to say "I believe, 2+2=4"
ppp
Well-Known Member
I reject both of those statements. I also believe that I reject both of those statements.
Yeah... seems like you missed my point.
An atheist can hold all sorts of beliefs or not, including that gods definitely don't exist, or that theists are fools... but none of this is what makes a person an atheist.
The only test for whether someone is an atheist: are any of their beliefs a belief that a god or gods exist?
- if yes, they're not an atheist.
- if no, they're an atheist.
That's it.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
He told me He doesn’t.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Multiple independent documents making the same claim.
Again if you think that supernatural is impossible (or highly improbable) and assuming that you have good arguments against supernatural ...... we can steel agree on the basis of the evidence that something that was interpreted by the witnesses as a supernatural event (a resurrection) happended
Which ones?
So you think that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet?
Edit: and again: a minute ago, you were arguing that having a bunch of believers adopt the belief within a few years of the event was "conclusive evidence" that the event happened as described, so it seems that you weren't talking about eyewitnesses.
Last edited:
leroy
Well-Known Member
Do you understand how this is different from what you were arguing before?
Earlier, you argued that the fact that early Christians - within a few years of Jesus's death - believed that Jesus wasn't actually dead was evidence that he wasn't actually dead.
It was only when I pointed out another religion whose followers all started believing that their founder wasn't actually dead almost immediately after he was actually dead that you decided on this new argument.
If you want this conversation to continue, here's what I'll need from you: only make arguments you plan to stick to.
If you realize you made an error and realize it later, that's fine; just note it and we can move on. But if you think, for instance, that the beliefs of early Christians don't conclusively prove that the Resurrection happened, don't argue that they do.
Sound fair?
You gave the impression earlier that you were talking about the beliefs of early Christians generally, including those who didn't witness the Resurrection firsthand. Have you changed your mind?
FFS.
If you're going to argue that Christianity is the best religion, maybe educate yourself a litte bit about the basics of other religions.
Do you understand how this was different from what you were arguing before?
Who do you think:
-
Its a cumulative case, the fact (by itself)that we have a source that dates within 3 years after the resurrection is not convincing evidence (its just a part of the puzzle) Particularly it supports the claim that the resurrection is not a legend nor a rumor nor a telephone game that developed through time.
As an analogy tiktaalik by itself is not convincing evidence for evolution (common ancestry) but is part of a cumulative case .
...
The resurrection hypothesis is grounded on the truth of 5 facts most scholars agree with plus the conclusion that the resurrection is the best explanation for those facts.
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 was buried
3 the tomb was found empty
4 the apostoles (and others) saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.
5 James and Paul where non Christians who converted after having an experience that thdy interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.
so assuming that you accept these facts , please provide an explanation and explain why is that explanationis better than a resurrection.
If you deny some of these facts, tell me which pof these facts do you deny and why.
...
If these 5 facts are true and no explanation is better than the resurrection, then I,ll say it's rational to accept the resurrection as something that probably happened.