Atheists Not Burdened by Proof

[columbus]

... First of all, however, an answer should be made to a curious objection put forward by rationalists, even though it has already been mentioned elsewhere in this book. The objection is as follows: whoever affirms that “God exists” is under the obligation to prove it, whereas the skeptic is in no way obliged to prove the contrary, since, so it seems, only he who makes an affirmation owes his critics a proof, he who denies it being under no such obligation.

I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of atheists. The statement "God does not exist." is a short (and not entirely accurate) way of saying " I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that God is a fictional character invented by humans for their own purposes".

I can demonstrate easily that there is no God who cares what we believe enough to tell what that is. The enormous amount of religious claims is sufficient proof for me.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

I think I speak for the overwhelming majority of atheists. The statement "God does not exist." is a short (and not entirely accurate) way of saying " I have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that God is a fictional character invented by humans for their own purposes".

I can demonstrate easily that there is no God who cares what we believe enough to tell what that is. The enormous amount of religious claims is sufficient proof for me.

Tom

And what is so hypocritical is a muslim is telling us we have no proof


When proof is required for islam, it would be crushed in a second

 

[Alceste]

And what is so hypocritical is a muslim is telling us we have no proof


When proof is required for islam, it would be crushed in a second

Nah, religionists who desire evidence that their scripture is divine always obtain it easily by redefining the word "evidence".

 

[Desert Snake]

El was a god and Yahweh was his son, and they were fused together in two different traditions that were collected and compiled by editors of the bible to form a unified belief to please their Babylonian oppressors who wanted a unified Israelite belief system in place.





Jesus redefined the gods concept once again.

That doesn't even make sense. The Babylonians were polytheistic, it was the Hebrews who were monotheistic.

Yes, the Yeshuists believe that Jeshua is God, at least you got something correct.

 

[outhouse]

Nah, religionists who desire evidence that their scripture is divine always obtain it easily by redefining the word "evidence".

How about the evidence god magically describes himself differently to every culture that has ever written, if he existed?

The obvious plagiarism involves is pathetic.

But ya your right.

You cannot use reason and logic against people who used neither to gain their current faith.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Hebrews were monotheistic prior to the Babylonian captivity, this was actually a 'problem' for the Babylonians.

 

[Apple Sugar]

That doesn't even make sense. The Babylonians were polytheistic, it was the Hebrews who were monotheistic.

Yes, the Yeshuists believe that Jeshua is God, at least you got something correct.

The Hebrews were always monotheistic. Where some may be confused is that Henotheism was also acknowledged in ancient Judaism. But that was because the ancient Hebrews recognized there may be other god's worshiped by other cultures and this is why that reverence was forbidden in Jewish scripture.
It isn't because the ancient Hebrews were polytheists and then turned to monotheism.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Hebrews were always monotheistic. Where some may be confused is that Henotheism was also acknowledged in ancient Judaism. But that was because the ancient Hebrews recognized there may be other god's worshiped by other cultures and this is why that reverence was forbidden in Jewish scripture.
It isn't because the ancient Hebrews were polytheists and then turned to monotheism.

Yes agreed.

 

[outhouse]

The Hebrews were always monotheistic. .

Sorry all of education and knowledge says your factually in error.

It is not up for debate they were polytheistic

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god,


By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult



Judah at this time was a vassal state of Assyria, but Assyrian power collapsed in the 630s, and around 622, Josiah and the Deuteronomists launched a bid for independence expressed as loyalty to "Yahweh alone" and in the law-code in the Book of Deuteronomy, written as a treaty between Judah and Yahweh to replace the vassal-treaty with Assyria.[83]

 

[outhouse]

If theist could take off the blinders and stop the fanaticism they would not be making these historical mistakes so blindly.


Polytheism and Human Sacrifice in Early Israelite Religion | Valerie Tarico

Polytheism and Human Sacrifice in Early Israelite Religion


the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32 indicates that Yahweh was believed to have been one of the children of the Canaanite deity El Elyon (God Most High). The song describes how the nations were originally formed, and what it says is that the peoples of the earth were divided up according to the number of El Elyon's children (the junior members of the divine pantheon). Yahweh, Israel's patron deity, was one of Elyon's children.


Israel's progression from polytheism to monotheism. Yahweh begins as a junior member of the divine pantheon. This is the view during the tribal confederation period of Israel's history

 

[columbus]

The Hebrews were monotheistic prior to the Babylonian captivity, this was actually a 'problem' for the Babylonians.

I find that reading the OT without that preconception gives you a completely different view. You can see the progression from "our" god, to the "supreme" god, to the "only" god.

The post-exilic redactors tried to scrub the scripture of these older beliefs, but some stories were too well known to be completely dumped. And frankly, Israelites following other Gods wouldn't have been such a continual problem for the judges and prophets if the people had been solid monotheists.


Tom

 

[Desert Snake]

I find that reading the OT without that preconception gives you a completely different view. You can see the progression from "our" god, to the "supreme" god, to the "only" god.

The post-exilic redactors tried to scrub the scripture of these older beliefs, but some stories were too well known to be completely dumped. And frankly, Israelites following other Gods wouldn't have been such a continual problem for the judges and prophets if the people had been solid monotheists.


Tom

Well, look, it's about making that choice, right? It was accepted that when they worshipped other gods or idols, it was a negative thing, that's why, though it would happen sometimes, the theology remained as a whole monotheistic. Even the nature of Xianity, which is different from Judaic belief without Jeshua, is monotheistic by adhering to the concept that Jeshua is a manifestation of G-d. The stories of 'idol worship' in the OT are there, sure, but idol worship in general is viewed negatively.

You have to understand that a 'god' is real to the worshipper, therefore just because one might say, it is a false god', doesn't mean the god actually exists, either.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, my example wasn't very clear, if it was written 'they worship an evil god', it is not actually telling us whether the god exists or not, for certain deities the inference is there, however. A 'wooden idol' is likely to be a non-existant god, as would say, someone worshipping a head of lettuce. A deity not explicitly false or 'silly' for lack of a better term, may or may not exist, that isn't really the point of the text.

 

[Iti oj]

Sorry, my example wasn't very clear, if it was written 'they worship an evil god', it is not actually telling us whether the god exists or not, for certain deities the inference is there, however, a 'wooden idol' is likely to be a non-existant god, as would say, someone worshipping a head of lettuce, a deity not explicitly false or 'silly' for lack of a better term, may or may not exist, that isn't really the point of the text.

Well I would agree that the golden cow wasn't really a god just a statue.

 

[Iti oj]

If they're weren't other gods then how did the Egyptian priest turn his staff info a snake? Who provided the miracle?

 

[Desert Snake]

If they're weren't other gods then how did the Egyptian priest turn his staff info a snake? Who provided the miracle?

True, unless it states the method of some occurrence like that, we don't really know. I can't remember if that was noted in the narrative, would have to look it up.

 

[Iti oj]

True, unless it states the method of some occurrence like that, we don't really know. I can't remember if that was noted in the narrative, would have to look it up.

There is no biblically given answer.

 

[Desert Snake]

There is no biblically given answer.

Hmm interesting.

 

[columbus]

True, unless it states the method of some occurrence like that, we don't really know. I can't remember if that was noted in the narrative, would have to look it up.

There is nothing complicated here. Moses fell into the "supreme" category. But Moses clearly wasn't a monotheist.

Tom

 

[outhouse]

There is nothing complicated here. Moses fell into the "supreme" category. But Moses clearly wasn't a monotheist.

Tom

Moses has no historicity at all as written he is purely a mythological character.

Israelites were never in Egypt, and there was no exodus