Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
According to science! And you can claim that gods caused anything and everything! That doesn't make it true, only wishful thinking. Unless you can provide EVIDENCE that god caused it, using whatever means, we have to assume these were completely natural events.

Science? What science has proved god doesnt exist? Hummm? I didnt think so. Sounds like your using just as much wishful thinking as any thesist. My point is...your making an assumption too and one that has no more basis in fact than anyone elses in so far as the topic is conserned.


No, but it's pretty compelling evidence that the gods as defined by their believers do not exist.

Its not compelling to the thiests now is it. Again...its a matter of opinion...not fact.


No, not just the tale of Gilgamesh. There are many different stories, from Babylon, from Egypt, from Greece, which predate the Biblical stories. Including many of the supposed attributes of Jesus, such as the virgin birth, the visit of the Magi, the resurrection. Part of the pattern we see throughout the history of religion is people taking older stories, dressing them up to accommodate their own beliefs, and claiming them as evidence for gods.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.


Not surprising, since floods happen all over the world, and when you have virtually no contact with anyone more than 10 miles from home it's natural to assume that a very large, destructive flood (similar to what's happening in the US right now, in fact) is worldwide! Do we see any geologic evidence of such a global flood? No, not at all. Just more stories.

That doesnt mean it didnt happen in so far as the thiests are conserned...and you have no evidence to say it didnt happen anyways.


No, I'm not leaving them out. They are anecdotal, not evidence. (to you) To the thiests they are all the evidence they need apparently. They're a good place to START looking for evidence, but they don't comprise evidence in and of themselves. And the problem is generally that, once you start looking for the evidence to corroborate a story, you come up with empty hands. Many scholars on this subject disagree with your interpetation of their findings however.


Not a good choice as an eyewitness, I don't think. There is reason to believe, based on his own writings, that Paul was sick when he was struck blind for three days. In fact, he was probably ill for most of his life. It is possible that his entire basis for his conversion and subsequent teachings were based on nothing more than a fever dream, or a seizure of some kind. You want to base your religion on that? And Paul also believed that the Second Coming of Jesus was going to happen IN HIS LIFETIME! Got that one wrong, didn't he?

Again...thats a matter of opinion...and not part of written history...its your belief...but not the belief of the theists. And its no more valid than theirs eaither.


Yes, there have been findings which show that the Bible has SOME historical significance, I've never denied that. There have been NO findings to support any of the RELIGIOUS claims put forth in the Bible, however. And some of the major characters in the Jewish and Christian theologies have NOT been shown to have existed anywhere outside of the Bible, including King David, Moses and Jesus Christ. Again...when you pick and choose your evidence as you see fit without bothering to really see if there is any validity too it and exclude all evidence that supports the theists...you take much on faith...your faith apparently mainly lays with those who hate religion, any religion, becuase it isnt atheism.


So if billions of people believe them they must be true?


I've NEVER claimed that my opinion is the ONLY right one. I leave such absolutes to the theists. And what makes me different from a theist is that I don't base my life on tales from ancient books and the maundering and blathering of well-dressed con-men.
And yet again more insults.

I didnt say anything about true or that one had to have a certian number of people who share their beliefs...just that people should be allowed to believe what they wish on the matter since no proof exists to the contrary. If I bring up numbers its to simply point out that the "atheists" are not in the majority...you lumped a whole bunch of people who are not "atheists" into the same pice of the pie chart in an attempt to bolster your sides appeareance.

When you make use of sophistry and avoid all logic and continue to take at position full of belicose rehtoric thats no different from the religious zealotry you claim to be against you look exactly like the opposite side of the same fundamentalist coin from my perspective.

And when you call everyone who doesnt share your beliefs hoodwinked, or a dummy...you sure are not preaching tolerance or secularism...you are indeed saying if its not your way...its wrong.