Confirmation Bias; Why Atheists cant see the Evidence for God

[Hollie]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

I have posted it merely fifty times here. But rather than repeat myself yet again, why don't you get off your lazy ass and crack a ******* book?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.


None of which constitutes 'proof' that 'god' exists as perceived by theists, it's proof that man created religion and 'god' as a consequence of this fear and ignorance.


What you perceive as 'evidence' is nothing more that subjective, unsubstantiated contrivances by theists seeking only to reinforce their belief in something that simply doesn't exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

Yes, cite your 'evidence,' supported by objective, documented facts and the truth.

 

[Hollie]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

I have posted it merely fifty times here. But rather than repeat myself yet again, why don't you get off your lazy ass and crack a ******* book?

Coward.

What evidence do you have for your alleged supernatural entities?

 

[JimBowie1958]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

I have posted it merely fifty times here. But rather than repeat myself yet again, why don't you get off your lazy ass and crack a ******* book?

Coward.

What evidence do you have for your alleged supernatural entities?

Lol, why do you think I would answer just because you repeat the question?

Are all of you libtard atheists that stupid?

roflmao

 

[JimBowie1958]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

Yes, cite your 'evidence,' supported by objective, documented facts and the truth.

Done that already.

If you really want to find the evidence, go looking for it like I did.

I really could not care less what happens to you. You are such a lying fraud I doubt that you have had a sincere inquiry into a life changing question from the day you learned to read, bubba.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You don't realize that what makes America great is that we took god and put him out of our government. Bye Bye Lord.

Bullshit, He is mentioned in all our nations founding documents, idiot.

Perhaps... But you'll notice that the reference is always the very generic "God" and never "Jesus", "Buddha", "The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran", or any other reference that specifically names a particular god or religion.

To do otherwise would be to establish a state religion, something they were carefully trying to avoid

Americans are fairly comfortable with "God", as long as He/She/It remains generic. If you want to start some serious squirming in a religious conversation at a diverse party or on a messageboard, ask people to name their god.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Accepting something on faith does not demonstrate an open mind just one willing to follow the whims and beliefs of others.

Just because we may not know the origin of something does not necessarily mean a supreme being is responsible. it could be that we are simply incapable of understanding it given out limited sensory and cognitive abilities..

I consider myself an agnostic with atheist leanings but if I saw proof with my own eyes that there was a supreme being I would be compelled to believe. Some of you are willing to believe without such proof but I am not wired that way

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fundie zealots of both sides continue to wroth and froth.

Their is no empirical link from God to "Right. Of course. The complex and marvelously rational configuration of the cosmos and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not evidence of God's existence. Oh, no. Not at all."

I believe the statement is true, but I know that it cannot be empirically proven.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You don't realize that what makes America great is that we took god and put him out of our government. Bye Bye Lord.

Bullshit, He is mentioned in all our nations founding documents, idiot.

Perhaps... But you'll notice that the reference is always the very generic "God" and never "Jesus", "Buddha", "The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran", or any other reference that specifically names a particular god or religion.

To do otherwise would be to establish a state religion, something they were carefully trying to avoid

Americans are fairly comfortable with "God", as long as He/She/It remains generic. If you want to start some serious squirming in a religious conversation at a diverse party or on a messageboard, ask people to name their god.

Good point. Most people are not comfortable discussing specifics because it might betray their ignorance.

I suspect that 80% of Christians have erroneous concepts of what the Trinity is, but 'God' is enough for what is required.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Accepting something on faith does not demonstrate an open mind just one willing to follow the whims and beliefs of others.

Just because we may not know the origin of something does not necessarily mean a supreme being is responsible. it could be that we are simply incapable of understanding it given out limited sensory and cognitive abilities..

I consider myself an agnostic with atheist leanings but if I saw proof with my own eyes that there was a supreme being I would be compelled to believe. Some of you are willing to believe without such proof but I am not wired that way

Faith alone is sufficient to please God, otherwise the stupid would have no chance for salvation. But yes, these are people who accept their faith in a child's way, trusting those in authority around them.

But the evidence, reason and life experiences are there to lead one to believe, and if it is not so, and you honestly have found no evidence to believe in God, God does not call you to fake having faith.

For me, the strongest evidence has been the lives of believers compared to nonbelievers of similar background, the believers over all have fewer brushes with the law, fewer divorces, fewer addictions to drugs, etc. In fact AA has at its core values a belief and reliance on God that WORKS to help people beat their addiction. Compared to secular organizations, AA is way more effective in ending the plague of alcoholism in these peoples lives.

I heard a man once say that he has not seen Jesus turn water into wine, but he has seen Him act in peoples lives and turn wine into paid bills, a happy family and a peaceful contentment with life that they had never had before. I knew exactly what he meant, but my problem wasn't alcohol, and I don't want to discuss it, but yes, the power of faith is incredible, even when I didn't want it to happen to me.

Once I found a desire to know the Truth of what is Reality in my autistic obsessive way, I dug and dug and dug into the subject and I found much evidence of God's existence that previously I had attributed to circumstance or evolution. The funniest thing is to look at the design in living cells and say that it was complete chance that made them that way. Evolution was the tool God used, but He did not directly intervene. He made it the way He knew would work and let it grow on its own accord.

Using evolution to explain away the obvious design in the universe is like saying you cannot see the maker who is behind the chisel. Evolution is the chisel, but God's Hand guides it.

The fact that time must have had a beginning, that any eternal object responsible for the universe had to be infinite and have intelligence (set of all possible sets) and daily life with Christians and atheist in contrast....I have faith as much due to the absence of it in some as the presence of it in others.

But you have to make your own choices, obviously, and what may seem obvious to me might seem bewildering to a person who does not have those same experiences. Just be honest with yourself, treat the people in your life with respect/honesty/integrity and keep an open mind and watchful eye for God to get your attention,

I doubt he will fail you.

 

[sealybobo]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

Really? Do you believe god talked to Mohammad or Joseph Smith and told them all the things they say he told them?

So you are an atheist too. You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.

When you realize your religion is just as made up as all the other religions, come talk to me.

 

[sealybobo]

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that education and critical thinking is shrinking the prospect base for the selling of religion in general.

Yes, that is right, the reduction in the publics ability to think rationally has led to a loss of members in the main stream Protestant denominations and a growth in Ignorant Atheists.

My, but you are the stereotypical, angry, self-hating fundie. Sorry to cause you such angst, but science has provided the means for understanding the natural world. People like you have contributed fear and superstition – hence your belief in nonexistent, supernatural entities.

Why cant you stick to the facts?

You atheists have slaughtered more people around the globe than all other religions, ideologies, or anything else.

Knee jerk atheists like you are evil, plain and simple. You don't know what the hell you are talking about and you are destroying what makes America 'America'.

You don't realize that what makes America great is that we took god and put him out of our government. Bye Bye Lord.

Bullshit, He is mentioned in all our nations founding documents, idiot.

And I don't believe for a second "atheists" have slaughtered even half of the human's you theists have.

Because of your pre-prepped confirmation bias, the same bias that blinds you to any evidence that is contrary to your world view, be it God, Obama's incompetence or the FACT that atheists have slaughtered so many people in the past century.

It would be too much for you feeble mind to contemplate, that you support the most murderous set of ideas regarding God that humanity has ever witnessed. Genghis Khan had more compassion and sympathy for human beings than the typical 20thb century atheist.

The more I look into it the more I see you try to give us credit for things that THEISTS have done. Example, it was Catholic German Nazi's that slaughtered the Jews, not atheists. There is PLENTY of evidence that Hitler believed in god and even if he didn't, the German people did. So they were the murderers there yet you try to give us credit for those things.

And that belief is likely the main reason Hitler didn't kill one fifth as many people as Stalin or Mao. He had to maneuver around a Christian public with lies, hiding his crimes from public view. With you atheists in charge, Stalin and Mao never had to bother.

Anyways, lets say we have murdered more. You guys sure come a close second. It's almost like believing in god doesn't make you any better than people who don't believe.

No, it isn't even close.

In fact, in America prisons about .001% of the inmates are atheists. That should tell you something.

Yeah, that it takes a lot of nerve to take a risk, nerve most atheists don't have.

This is why I stopped arguing politics with conservatives. If they can swallow the jesus bullshit story without question, no wonder Fox and Rush have such an easy time pulling your strings.

I figure if I can attack the source of their stupidity maybe I have a chance of changing the way they vote and the type of citizen they are. Right now cons are greedy selfish and ignorant.

In other words, if you think Obama sucked and ignore the shit he had to deal with, but then you defended GW Bush and you would vote for his brother Jeb...If you believe that and I can convince you otherwise, how the hell am I going to make you realize the invisible man you talk to is a lie?

 

[sealybobo]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

 

[sealybobo]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

Ok, show me any good evidence a god exists. Evidence a scientist would accept. If you can't, piss off.

Lol, you are an idiot.

Science CANNOT prove anything not of the natural world, so your whole claim to want evidence is a shallow hypocrisy of posturing for results you have deliberately set up to fail.

Evidence used in criminal trials, civil courts, the kind of evidence that inform our choices we all have to make every single day is not 100% scientific. If you weren't such a gibbering fool you would know that.

There is a HUGE accumulation of historical, circumstantial, and eye witness events that prove God exists, and you look a total jack ass ignoring it all.

What evidence would that be?

I have posted it merely fifty times here. But rather than repeat myself yet again, why don't you get off your lazy ass and crack a ******* book?

What book, the bible?

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

 

[sealybobo]

You don't realize that what makes America great is that we took god and put him out of our government. Bye Bye Lord.

Bullshit, He is mentioned in all our nations founding documents, idiot.

Perhaps... But you'll notice that the reference is always the very generic "God" and never "Jesus", "Buddha", "The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran", or any other reference that specifically names a particular god or religion.

To do otherwise would be to establish a state religion, something they were carefully trying to avoid

Americans are fairly comfortable with "God", as long as He/She/It remains generic. If you want to start some serious squirming in a religious conversation at a diverse party or on a messageboard, ask people to name their god.

Good point. Most people are not comfortable discussing specifics because it might betray their ignorance.

I suspect that 80% of Christians have erroneous concepts of what the Trinity is, but 'God' is enough for what is required.

You don't even need to read the bible or go to church. The only test is a true or false test and it is 1 question.

Do you believe Jesus Christ is your lord and savior and died on the cross for your sins?

a. No or Fales

b. Yes or True

c. Agnostic (not sure)

d. Agnostic Atheist (knows Jesus and Mohammad are fake but there could be a god somewhere)

e. Atheist (Sure there is no god)

The right answer is D but Christians would prefer you not ask any questions, take their word for it and answer B.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists, why argue with fundies: you will lose.

Fundies, why argue with atheists: you will lose.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Atheists, why argue with fundies: you will lose.

Fundies, why argue with atheists: you will lose.

Cheap entertainment?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, there is that.