Was Dave Silverman on Fox News Again?!

I’m surprised Dave let the whole “historical record of Jesus” spiel go unchallenged. He should have asked him what non-biblical historical figures corroborated the existence of Jesus. It would be difficult, as they don’t exist.

I thought he did a good job. I particularly like his response to “What would it take for you to believe in God?” as “What would it take for you to believe in Zeus?”

Although, I do agree with the objection that the ancients probably did not consider that they were having a “personal relationship with Zeus”. But the main point still stands.

OMG, that Colbert segment was hilarious!

“Won’t somebody think of the children?” How lame can you get? That’s pretty much an admission that you don’t have a real argument.

Why isn’t she concerned about children seeing billboards like this?:
Anti-atheist billboards
“Attention: Lunatic atheists & their lawyers
Anti-God is Anti-American
Anti-American is Treason
Traitors lead to Civil War
rev. E.F. Briggs, PO Box 9066, Monongah, WV 26554”

There’s a billboard in St. Louis that shows a black and white image of a person holding a gun towards the viewer, and the caption reads something like “He doesn’t believe in God. Why should he believe in you?”

OFFENSIVE.

I prefer the “good without god” billboards, but even the Christmas one is far less in-your-face than religious billboards I have seen.

Silverman did a nice job. There was an awful lot of noise during that discussion. Numerous random points were being scatter fired at him continuously. I think that he was able to present a well reasoned position despite defending multiple fronts.

It was apparent by the points brought up by the panel, that none of them had ever really heard any atheist’s positions before – let alone understood them. There seemed to be a reaction of incredulity every time Silverman made a point. This demonstrates to me, just how badly we need campaigns like these billboards in order to raise mainstream awareness.

I’m looking forward to more from Silverman and others presenting our point of view in the public eye.

I wish that Silverman hadn’t said that Osiris was a dying and rising god. According to the Egyptian myths, after Osiris’ death, he went to the underworld, where he became lord of the dead.

I was getting so mad when she said that mythology was not religion! Did no one pay attention to world history class in high school? I’m so glad I will be teaching my son about current religions and past ones in the context of mythologies.

The panel in general was logic proof as expected. But the argument of the blonde woman on the far left was painful. I don’t know how Dave Silverman does it as I would just find the endless repetition of the same arguments annoying.

To the “What would it take question?” I would say a time machine and a camcorder.

Colbert was a riot as usual.

What, are these pastors going to just stay home if they can’t catch the right bus? Walk? Bicycle? Hitchhike?

This isn’t a boycott. Coming from someone who doesn’t use transit in the first place, you get what you’ve got here.

On the other hand, if something is bad enough to get people off the bus who can’t drive at all, there are far more serious problems than the loss of fare – This wouldn’t be a boycott, this would be removing oneself from access to community, employment, basic staples, medical care, etc. This is an unconscionable thing to ask others to do over some advertisement.

I really don’t like it when Dave states that there’s more atheists out there than studies show, when he says that he knows there’s so many people sitting in pews at churches who know they are praying to air. I don’t like it because he doesn’t present any evidence for this knowledge. To me, this kind of statement is equivalent to a Christian believing that atheists know deep down that Jesus really is the son of God.

Good answers from Silverman. I like how he threw back the questions as equivalent questions but for other gods. Their god doesn’t get special treatment just because it is their god.

Anyone else notice how it’s the “panel” asking Dave a question and then talking over him as soon as he finishes a sentence?

I really don’t like it when Dave states that there’s more atheists out there than studies show, when he says that he knows there’s so many people sitting in pews at churches who know they are praying to air. I don’t like it because he doesn’t present any evidence for this knowledge. To me, this kind of statement is equivalent to a Christian believing that atheists know deep down that Jesus really is the son of God.

Gotta say I agree.

I feel very strongly–as strongly as I do that god does not exist–that many people who go to church regularly don’t believe the nonsense and do it out of obligation, social norms, or peer pressure. This is especially true in progressive or liberal churches, where the average attendee is educated.

But, I have no evidence (other than anecdotal) to back up this claim.

I know there’s atheists that have come out and stated that they did go to church and they did prey even though they knew it was fake, but did it because it was the social norm or peer pressure. We know there are people like this, but we have no idea how many people still in churches today are like this. So unless there’s some kind of study I don’t know about that shows a significant amount of church-goers admit that their biblical stories are myths, Dave should lay off making this argument. He should stick to making as many evidence-based arguments as possible and citing the evidence. When you go off making claims and arguments based on suspicion or belief, you look crazy. Dave should leave those kinds of claims to theists. Let people like Bill Donohue (President of Catholic League) make statements like this on national television:

So they believe that we came from nothing, a Big Bang Theory, or is it the King Kong Theory? we’re all a bunch of apes, we fell down kaplunk one day. I don’t know, if he wants to believe in that fairytale, he has every right to do so.

let the general public see highly distinguished theists making ridiculous offensive statements like they often do, and see atheist public figures being calm and rational and backing up their claims with evidence. This is the kind of thing that can change minds. If atheist public figures say crazy things too, people are bound to see both sides as equal.

another thing I didn’t like… you see Alex McFarland stating that there’s all this historical evidence for Biblical events, and Dave is just sitting there nodding along, and doesn’t even disagree with it. When Alex was done talking, all Dave comes back with was that there were a lot of mythical figures that had a story much like Jesus’. Nodding politely to a Christian making empty claims like that and not pointing out the fallacy of it only makes viewers think that it’s true, that this historical evidence is real and the atheist is just ignoring it.

Larry Meredith wrote:

I really don’t like it when Dave states that there’s more atheists out there than studies show, when he says that he knows there’s so many people sitting in pews at churches who know they are praying to air. I don’t like it because he doesn’t present any evidence for this knowledge. To me, this kind of statement is equivalent to a Christian believing that atheists know deep down that Jesus really is the son of God.

Partly true. There are many personal stories of people finally getting the courage to admit just that and leave the church (mosque, synagogue etc.). Thus there is evidence that this is an actual phenomenon. There are, however, no numbers on how big or small this occurence is.
So, are there people like this (closet atheists)? Oh yes.
Are there a lot of them? We don’t know.

EDIT: Damn, ninja’ed by yourself. 😉

I don’t mind that he didn’t challenge the historicity of Jesus – that would have derailed and eaten up an awful lot of time in a short interview, and the zinger of “what would it take for you to believe in Zeus” is more pithy, memorable, and to the point than a drawn-out discussion of whether Josephus was a reliable writer. Besides, the point stands that even if Jesus were a real person who had a cult following, he still wouldn’t be a god.

@Robert W: Same old arguments and not answering questions, instead asking other questions… Saying the story of Zues is the same as the story of Jesus’ birth is intellectually dishonest and he should know it.

Robert, it must be very comforting to go through life so totally fucking oblivious.

Dave Silverman was AWESOME!

To those of us who want to nit-pick at whether he nodded when we would have preferred he shake his head, or you complain about whether he properly captured the nuances of how some other myths compare to the christian myth: have you EVER been interviewed on live TV? Do you have ANY idea how tough it is going up against news people (who are on TV for a living, every day, and have the home court advantage of knowing how to cut people off before they answer, etc., as Fox is famous for)? But to be up against FOUR believers at once, with their barrage of questions? At Fox (bible-thumping) News!?! Dave went into the ‘belly of beast’ and came out triumphant.

Dave Silverman was AWESOME!

He kept making his points. He did so wonderfully. He was clear. Rationale. Unapologetic (and rightly so). He wasn’t shy about calling christianity a myth. When they tried to unfairly box him in on ‘disproving’ God he perfectly turned the tables and asked them how they would disprove Zeus.

American Atheists: WELL DONE!

Larry, yes, I see your point.
But I agree with Dave Silverman on this.

I, like Dave, “believe” there are LOTS of people who go to church every Sunday, looking like christians, going through the motions, but in their minds really KNOWING that their religion (whichever one) makes no sense and can’t REALLY be true.

There are MANY atheists who admit that they went to church for years, even decades, after they solidly KNEW it was all a myth. I was one of them. I have a family member who says the bible is all made up to make money, but still he goes to church EVERY Sunday for the past 80 years! (Keeps his wife happy.)

While this is not a scientific study, there is enough evidence that indeed many nonbelievers DID attend church, etc., even after knowing it was all made-up. The logical extension is that others are probably doing the same right now (and I know of one in my family, as I mentioned). How many more? Who knows? But Dave is not asserting that exactly 22.3% of pews are definitely proven to be filled with atheists. He’s saying that in general he ‘believes’ there are lots of them out there. I think he’s right.

More importantly, in terms of who this ad (and media blitz) is calling to: it prompts those in the pews ask themselves whether they really, honestly believe in their religion. It has them ask themselves, am I just going through the motions here? Do I REALLY believe this crazy stuff? Some will probably say to themselves “No, I really don’t” (and there’s a reasonable-sounding guy on TV telling me that that’s OK, and I should think about being honest with my family, my community, and myself and admitting my non-belief).

Jeff,

Robert, it must be very comforting to go through life so totally fucking oblivious.

Do you know the story of Zues’ birth? If you do please tell me how it resembles the story of Jesus’s birth.

If you don’t, then we will see who is going through life oblivious.

I know them both well and there is no similarities at all. But if you want, keep on thinking there is.

Jeff,

Robert, it must be very comforting to go through life so totally fucking oblivious.

Do you know the story of Zues’ birth? If you do please tell me how it resembles the story of Jesus’s birth.

He wasn’t comparing the births, moron.

I know them both well and there is no similarities at all.

And yet you don’t know them well enough to spell Zeus’s name correctly in any of your comments.

Robert W, of course he was comparing the two.

In this case the question was not whether Zeus is similar to Jesus, but what would it take to convince the christian that Zeus is real.

And it’s a trick question, because if the christian answers “I want evidence for Zeus” then Silverman can come back with “I want evidence for Jesus” and the christian has to admit that he has none, or lie about the historicity of Jesus.

Any other answer justifying christian belief fails the test of evidence. “My parents told me” … how do they know? “The bible says so” … lots of books contain untruths, and the bible is a collection of works written over thousands of years, and is the result of a human editing process over many years (see Development of the Old Testament canon). In short, I doubt any christian can give an answer to the “why do you believe?” question which stands up to critical enquiry.

Nick,

If it is a trick question then it isn’t a very good one. I would be happy to get into a discussion on the historicity of Jesus with anyone.

If you want to actually study rational and reasonable reasons for faith then I would direct you to William Lane Craig, C.S. Lewis and Timothy Keller among others.

Actually, if I was asked this trick question I would first say- answer my question first. Then I would say, if there was the same evidence for Zeus as there is for God and by extension Jesus, then I would believe it, but since I know there isn’t then I don’t believe in Zeus.

Secular.

I am very confident in my honesty and ethics. I know what I said and I know what I asked.

So instead of throwing around curse words in an effort to make you sound authoritative, why don’t you try to answer the question.

Which if you missed it was- how are the two accounts of Zeus’ birth and Jesus’ birth the same? Which is very relevant question to this issue because Silverman,in an attempt to compare the evidence implied through his question that they were the same. Particularly when the whole discussion was centering on the “myth” of the birth account of Jesus.

If you don’t take his statement that way so be it but it is the logical end to the inquiry. Maybe you missed that.

@Robert W
For clarification. As an Atheist I usually bring up Zues to show christians that they too are atheists when it comes to other gods but their own.
The interesting part is seeing the realization in their eyes when they imagine, just for a second, what it feels like to be on the outside. Then the brainwash reflex kicks in and they are back to circular reasoning.

@Robert W
This is a tricky slip you are using here;

Then I would say, if there was the same evidence for Zeus as there is for God and by extension Jesus, then I would believe it, but since I know there isn’t then I don’t believe in Zeus.

There is just as much evidence for Zues as for your god; None. This you know, that is why you added “by extension Jesus”. This extension is only usable if you can proof that your god exists and the ‘inspired’ scripture is true. Until you can proof that, it stays a myth. Just like Zues.

@Robert W
You are careful enough to say that you ‘think that there is plenty of evidence’, this is because you know it isn’t really evidence. Or else you would share it with us.
You can tell yourself all you want. It’s not evidence, and you know it.

If what Jesus said and did, including rising from the dead is true, then in my views that is the best evidence of God.

Come on, you must know better that to fall back on circular reasoning?

Sven,

You are careful enough to say that you ‘think that there is plenty of evidence’, this is because you know it isn’t really evidence. Or else you would share it with us.
You can tell yourself all you want. It’s not evidence, and you know it.

I didn’t state it that way for the reason you claim. I have been here long enough to know that what I cite as evidence, including philosophical arguments, is ignored by most of those on the other side of the argument with the sweeping allegation that it isn’t evidence at all. I have expressed my arguments and evidence many times and would be happy to do it again.

Come on, you must know better that to fall back on circular reasoning?

That isn’t circular reasoning because Jesus said he was God. He also said he would die and rise again. So if there is evidence that the resurrection occurred then that is evidence that God exists.

The other arguments for God include cosmology arguments, Biblical archeology, the argument for moral objectivity, the evidence for the reality of Jesus and the resurrection as described in the Gospels, etc… All clues to God’s existence. But I will agree that in the end, we must look at these clues and say we believe based upon faith. A faith that I say is rational and reasonable. You on the other hand look at the same arguments and evidence and reach the conclusion that you will not believe.

By the same token I look at what atheists normally argue is evidence or clues that there is no God and reach the conclusion that this isn’t evidence that defeats his existence, whereas you would look at it and believe that it does.

My point is in the end we are both taking a position of belief based upon faith of something we contend we have evidence for yet we don’t know for certain. I will say I believe that there is a God and I assume you will say you believe that there isn’t. i would even go so far as saying that my belief is to the point of being a certainty, but I cannot say it doesn’t also include a degree of faith. And with that I am very comfortable. I would assume that the reverse for you would be the same.

Jeff,

Oh, yes, right – the atheist walks away in disgust because the Christian is stubborn and obtuse, and the Christian is convinced it’s because he has no comeback. How trite is this?

Really, that’s why he walked away? I must have missed it when he walked away after answering the question or supporting Silverman’s argument that the story of Jesus and Zeus or even Osiris are very similar. Oh yea, he didn’t answer those questions.

Osiris is an excellent example of a deity dying and rising again. The Mediterranean mystery cults, as well, were full of them. So they got tweaked a little bit, when incorporated by the early Christians, to align with Jewish messianic fervor. Big deal.

Without giving any description of the similarities you simply say they exist. Then you assume that the Jewish people, who as a culture have always attempted to segregate themselves from other ancient cultures knew enough of the Orisis mythology to not only know it but to want to copy it while at the same time they ignored every other aspect of the mythology such as mummification etc…

The assumptions you make in this statement are huge. Assuming you can list some similar parallels in the story you assume the Christ story was a copy of the other. It would be like saying all murder mysteries are a copy of all others because you can find similar themes in them. What evidence do you have to support that assumption?

As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned – I am sick to death of you people saying that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for any other figure of antiquity. No. Period. Fail. You’re just fucking WRONG. You can cite the arguments of all of the theological hacks you want to (and hacks is precisely what Craig and Lewis are/were); it doesn’t change a thing.

I don’t believe I have ever made this comment but I do know that there is a vast amount of information and evidence for the historicity of Jesus. And this evidence is closer in time to his life and more abundant then some other historical figures that atheists just acce;t as being real.

What I am sick of is you people consistently ignoring this evidence. But if you call Craig and Lewis a hack you have already showed how closed minded you are on the issue and how much you ignore the evidence provided to you. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind so there is no need to discuss it with you.

Sven,

We see things differently. I don’t limit the evidence I have for God’s existence to science, nor do I think science has disproved the existence of God.

Why limit the evidence for God to scientific evidence? Why exclude all of the other evidence that is out there? Why use natural laws in an attempt to prove or disprove the supernatural?

I would ask you, what scientific evidence do you think proves irrefutably that god doesn’t exist?

I explained why I didn’t get into the details of the arguments that I mentioned and your response shows why.

If you want a detailed explanation of these arguments I would refer you to William Lane Craig’s website, reasonablefaith.org. Or Timothy Keller’s book, Reason for God.

As for the world being a making more sense without a deity, I couldn’t disagree with you more. But that is where we will differ in our worldview.

Sven,

Did you actually go to the website? Dr. Craig has two Phds- one in philosophy and one in theology. I’m confident in his abilities to reason and construct an argument.

Let’s discuss one of those arguments. Not only from Craig but from Norman Geisler.

Would you agree that the universe had a beginning? I will assume that you do because science had confirmed that it does.

If that is so, then the universe had to have a cause, because it is possible for it not to have been in existence.

Because it is possible that the universe could not exist then it is not necessary and thus had to have been caused from a cause that was necessary. In other words what caused the universe to come into being had to be necessary cause that had no possibility of not existing; ie a cause that is eternal and always in existence. A first uncaused cause so to speak.

Therefore a first uncaused cause, necessary cause to the beginning of the universe exists.

How would you describe this first uncaused cause? It would have to be eternal, unchanging, all powerful, outside of space and time, all knowing and all perfect. Why? In shorthand, because it caused all things to come into existence including space and time.

A being that is eternal, beyond space and time, all knowing, all powerful and unchanging is just how the God of the Bible is described.

Thus the God of the Bible can be said to exist.

Understand this is a shorthand version of this argument and only one piece of the puzzle, but I thought I would start here if you are serious about a discussion.

I find it interesting that you agree that science can’t disprove the existence of God. That is refreshing. I would guess you would agree then that to say that God definitely doesn’t exist is not based upon science. Then your believe that he doesn’t must be based upon something else. What would that be?

Jeff,

I ask you for your arguments and once again you state nothing. I’ve done my homework and I know there are no similarities in the accounts. But since you brought up that there were I figured you would state them.

The best you can do throw insults and snide remarks. Not much of an argument but it certainly shows the shallowness of your position.

Tell me which scholars laugh at Craig? Do you actually know of any or did you just make that up? And your opinion aside I have yet to see you even attempt to refute his arguments.

Your comments about the Jewish culture of Roman times answers nothing. It doesn’t address the assumptions you are making nor the questions raised. If you actually have any evidence that the Jewish people copied mythology from the Romans or the Egyptians, or even more direct, that the writers of the Gospels borrowed from this mythology I would be happy to look at it. Or is this another unfounded assumption?

One thing you are correct about- this discussion is over.

Sven,

Whoever said Craig was a scientist?

You may worship at the alter of science but there are other forms of evidence. I have told you that before.

So is this ´argument´ irrifutable scientific proof, no it is not.

Correct. It is an argument based upon philosophy.

As far as possible uncaused causes, you could list an endless number of other possible causes but what does that mean? If the God of the Bible is a probable cause that fits then it would then be your burden to prove other probable causes are equally valid.

If have told you this before. The lack of believe in all these (and many more), including your god is….. lack of evidence.

So in your mind then what you perceive to be absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Not very scientific of you.

Hope you were entertained

Sorry but I can’t let this go.

Robert W.

Would you agree that the universe had a beginning? I will assume that you do because science had confirmed that it does.

No. The universe has an origin inferred as a ‘Big Bang’ event from the observed Doppler effect that shows that the universe is expanding. Confirmed? Proven? Not quite. What we can tell is that the universe was a lot more dense than it is now.

If that is so, then the universe had to have a cause, because it is possible for it not to have been in existence.

Why? When an isotope emits a radioactive particle what causes it to decay? Can you demonstrate or scientifically infer that the universe did not exist at some point?

In other words what caused the universe to come into being had to be necessary cause that had no possibility of not existing; ie a cause that is eternal and always in existence.

Hang on. You are simply assuming that a cause was external if there was even a cause. Very clever scientists have come up with some hypotheses regarding this that don’t use the lazy logic of calling upon gods as explanations. They are hypotheses because no-one actually knows.

I had the privilege of listening to a lecture by Professor Brian Cox and having a chat to him afterwards. I asked him what caused the Big Bang (or rapid expansion) and he said “I don’t know”. He’s a clever fellow. You’d think he’d know wouldn’t you? No, he’s honest enough to admit that science hasn’t found a cause. What makes you think that you have? A mythology written at the end of the Iron Age? Pah!

It would have to be eternal, unchanging, all powerful, outside of space and time

Space-time please. Do you know what we call something that doesn’t exist in space-time? Non-existent.

it caused all things to come into existence including space and time.

Evidence?

A being that is eternal, beyond space and time, all knowing, all powerful and unchanging is just how the God of the Bible is described.

Really? I’m pretty sure it isn’t. I distinctly recall a passage where Abraham sat and had a conversation with this God fellow and another where he got into a street fight. He seems very human in appearance and attitude.

Thus the God of the Bible can be said to exist.

Woah! Big leap. You could have been describing Zeus, Odin or Ra there or even one of Lovecraft’s Many Angled Ones. How did you leap to your god from such a vague and illogical definition?

I find it interesting that you agree that science can’t disprove the existence of God.

I suggest you look up Russell’s Cosmic Teapot argument. It explains wonderfully the error that you have just made.

I would guess you would agree then that to say that God definitely doesn’t exist is not based upon science.

God doesn’t exist. Probably.

Then your believe that he doesn’t must be based upon something else. What would that be?

A lack of evidence for gods of any kind. The logical inconsistency of arguments for gods. They are really weak as your cosmological argument demonstrates. Better explanations for god belief in sociology and psychology. The lack of a reason for there to be gods. The Problem of Evil. That utter lack of meaning in the term “god”. Most of all though what convinces me is that god is not apparent.

Sven,

Actually these statements show how closed minded you really are. You limit the only evidence you would consider for any of these things to science despite its limitations. What you are really saying is that you are willing to broaden your beliefs of science and nothing more.

By your vague comments about Hades, I assume you are implying that I believe out of a fear of Hell. Quite a wrong and uninformed assumption of your part.

Hoverfrog,

For some reason my computer is not allowing me to block your comments so bear with this response. I will try to comment in order.

Universe have a beginning that also was when space and time began:

From Stephen Hawings:

“In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.”

“The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.”

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/62

Hawings of course disagrees with the idea that God created the universe, but he does agree that the universe had a beginning and that time began with the Big Bang. As far as lazy logic, he assumes that matter was always there and without any outside force it just exploded one day. Without any attempt to explain how it got there,how long it had been there or how it would explode on its own without the effect of an outside force. And he does this by apparently saying that before the Big Bang it doesn’t matter because nothing was observable.

I won’t pretend to know all that he has said or the science about all of this, but I did think I would show you that we at lease should agree on this

As far as the description of God in the Bible, we could go verse by verse, but I feel very confident that my description of God is correct. He also became man in the form of Jesus for those of use that believe in the Trinity. Some believe that this was who wrestled with Jacob.

China Teapot- false analogy by Russell and by extension the flying spaghetti monster, Santa Claus etc… The reason people would not believe that there is a teapot flying around Mars is not because we can’t see it and therefore have an absence of evidence, but because we have contrary evidence to conclude that it doesn’t exist such as we never launched a teapot into space.

Let me give you an example of Russell’s failed logic- If you and I are standing on Top of Big Ben (to use a UK landmark) and I ask is there a fly on that cafe table across the river? And after a quick glance you say no because you can’t see one. does that sound logical to you?

As far as your “lack of evidence” for any gods, that is along list of items to respond to that we have discussed before and will I am sure discuss again.

You limit the only evidence you would consider for any of these things to science despite its limitations.

Robert,

For me (and indeed, many of us atheists) to accept any standard of evidence outside science, we need to be shown that it is both consistent (it produces the same results no matter how it is applied) and reliable (it can be applied in many different situations and still yield results). This may seem like stubborn pedantry to you, but the reason many skeptics accept the scientific standard of evidence is because, like a certain brand of designer electronics, it just works, and we would be open to any alternate standard of evidence if we could be shown that it worked even 1% as well as scientific inquiry.

I asked you in an earlier thread to provide an alternate standard by which we might obtain knowledge, and you gave me four or five common apologetic arguments. However, what you did not give me was an alternate standard of evidence to scientific inquiry.

To say that the universe and intelligent life require a benevolent creator is an argument, not evidence.

To say that moral behavior requires a universal standard of morality is an argument, not evidence.

People’s individual religious experiences can certainly be taken as evidence, but if you want to submit them as evidence, you must also show why the personal experiences of religions you consider false cannot also be evidence. The only reason this evidence is not scientific is because it fails to stand up to scrutiny, not because it adheres to an alternate standard of evidence.

Historical evidence is also evidence, but historical evidence falls squarely within the standards of scientific evidence and doesn’t support your claim that we are closed-minded to alternate standards of evidence.

I already feel that we are not meeting on an even keel here. I cannot speak for other atheists here, but I myself argue out of a desire to come to a greater understanding of truth, but you seem to argue out of a desire to convince others that what you believe is right. I aim at a minimum to show you that I am earnest in my approach, a truth which you repeatedly deny.

So with that in mind, I ask you again, not out of sarcasm, but out of an earnest desire to penetrate to the heart your argument. What is the alternate standard of evidence, which is both consistent and reliable, by my above definitions, to which we have so willfully and stubbornly chosen to shut our hearts?

To be clear, then, my one request to you is to identify what standards of evidence exist, outside of scientific inquiry, that can be used to obtain knowledge reliably and consistently. I am not asking for a mere redux of apologetic arguments.

@Robert W

If someone can only “convert” you based upon scientific evidence then you will neither be a Christian nor an atheist because science cannot either prove or disprove God’s existence.

Nor can it disprove allah’s existance, nor Zues’s existance etc. We’ve been over this. It is a affirmation that I do not simply believe anything just because other people believe it is real. What is so hard to understand about that? If you claim your god exist and you can not back it up, why should I believe your story over anybody else’s?

And if you are truly that strict of a rationalist I wonder how it affects the other parts of your life. I doubt that you are, but are simply using that as the basis to ignore the other evidence so that you can be comfortable in your agnosticism.

Please, your ´other evidence´ is no more that circular reasoning. It is nonsense.

If that is what you meant by your comment about Hades there is no need to respond because you obviously don’t believe it so what is the point.

The point is that you said you were open to ´other evidence´, why won´t you accept this as evidence? Please do respond, if you are so open minded as you claim to be.
The teapot; it is an analogy that the burden of proof is on the one that makes the claim. What is there not to understand?

Keep it up!

@Robert W
Of course we are getting nowhere. You are stuck in your delusion, claiming evidence that is not there. I have looked at the website you named and gave you my honest reaction.
What questions have I not answered? I have told you many times I do not believe in any unproven myth, like your god. I do not make claims about it´s existence, I simply do not believe. I am as much of an atheist as I am an athoothfairyist, I do not believe in either. Why is this still so hard for you to understand?

Explain to me how your unsupported comment about Hades is evidence of anything that I should consider? You might as well have said we are all just floating on the fingernail of an alien and our existence is a delusion go prove it wrong.

Same as yours, read a book, believe it is real without any evidence, keep going in circles. I can write it down and claim i was inspired by Zues in a dream if that would make you feel better. Do you now suddenly have a standard to what constitutes as evidence?

To me the teapot analogy shows that if you make a claim that you can not back up with evidence, there is no claim.

Robert W. you made the claim that the Big Bang was proven. Despite Hawking’s clear intellect and the weight of evidence I’d still have to say that “proven” is too strong a term to use.

As far as the description of God in the Bible, we could go verse by verse, but I feel very confident that my description of God is correct.

Verse by verse would be fine. I am not so confident as you are but then you probably know your bible much better than I do. It shouldn’t be too great a chore for you to demonstrate in clear an unequivocal terms that your claim is correct.

He also became man in the form of Jesus for those of use that believe in the Trinity.

Yeah I’m pretty sure that Jesus wasn’t clear on the claim to be God. I’m pretty sure that he left the question not answered fully.

Some believe that this was who wrestled with Jacob.

I’ve never heard that claim before. However I’m pretty sure that these events do not fit the timeline. i.e. Jesus was supposedly born long after Jacob was dead.

The reason people would not believe that there is a teapot flying around Mars is not because we can’t see it and therefore have an absence of evidence, but because we have contrary evidence to conclude that it doesn’t exist such as we never launched a teapot into space.

No. Sorry but no. A teapot shaped asteroid may exist. We certainly cannot disprove it. Go ahead and look it up.

Let me give you an example of Russell’s failed logic- If you and I are standing on Top of Big Ben (to use a UK landmark) and I ask is there a fly on that cafe table across the river? And after a quick glance you say no because you can’t see one. does that sound logical to you?

Big Ben is the bell, not the tower. You wouldn’t be able to see across the river from Big Ben. You mean Clock Tower of St Stephens. Pedantry aside the example should read that you are claiming that there is a fly. Given that we can’t see one how can your claim be refuted?

Hoverfrog,

Verse by verse would be fine. I am not so confident as you are but then you probably know your bible much better than I do. It shouldn’t be too great a chore for you to demonstrate in clear an unequivocal terms that your claim is correct.

The eternal God- Gen.21:33; Ps 90:2

Infinite- 1K8:27

Immortal- 1 Timothy 1:17

Invisible- John 1:18

All Knowing- Ps 147:5

All powerful- Isa 40:6-7

Unchanging- Mal 3:6

Righteous- Ps 145:17

Perfect- Matt. 5:48

Gracious Ex 34:6

All Loving- Ex 34:6; 1 John 4:8-10, 16

To give you a sample

Yeah I’m pretty sure that Jesus wasn’t clear on the claim to be God. I’m pretty sure that he left the question not answered fully.

That would be a whole post on the doctrine of the Trinity, but a good verse for that is John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made.

To see what Jesus said, there are several verses. One is matt. 28:20 where he says he will be with His disciples for all time.

I will agree that He wasn’t as clear as he could be, but it is well established among the vast majority of mainstream Christians that Jesus was God in the form of the Trinity.

I’ve never heard that claim before. However I’m pretty sure that these events do not fit the timeline. i.e. Jesus was supposedly born long after Jacob was dead.

I apologize. I should have said the pre-incarnate Christ.

No. Sorry but no. A teapot shaped asteroid may exist. We certainly cannot disprove it. Go ahead and look it up.

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your response. I think that the fact that a tea pot shaped asteroid may exist is not the point of Russel’s analogy. I tried to show the logical fallacy in his argument.

Big Ben is the bell, not the tower. You wouldn’t be able to see across the river from Big Ben. You mean Clock Tower of St Stephens. Pedantry aside the example should read that you are claiming that there is a fly. Given that we can’t see one how can your claim be refuted?

I have only been to London once so probably shouldn’t have used that landmark.

Regardless my example is as I meant it to be. If we are there and I ask is there a fly and you look and say I can’t see one so no there isn’t. Then you would be making a claim of non-existence based upon lack of evidence of what you can see. That is an example of absence of evidence = evidence of absence. When a more logical response would be I’ don’t know. I was trying to show the equivalent position of an atheist who claims God doesn’t exist because there is an absence of evidence and an agnostic positio

@Hoverfrog

Honestly are you just making this stuff up?

No, he has ‘special evidence’..

Hoverfrog,

Bernerbit’s description is a fairly accurate understanding of our theology.

Christians believe that Jesus is a part of the Trinity- God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit all in one. Jesus became all man as well when he came to Earth, he was God incarnate.

Truly I think that trying to get into a discussion of the Trinity with you would be laborious and unfruitful based upon your comments about the verses I already showed you. But I hope you would accept that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an arbitrary belief. It has extremely well supported in the Scriptures.

A shorthand version would be this- There is only one God, but it is clear there are three eternal and coequal persons in the Godhead. The New Testament says that the Father is God- John 6:27; Eph. 4:6; Jesus is God- Heb 1:8, John 1:1, the Holy Spirit is God- Acts 5:4-3; and all three are one- Matt. 28:19 ; 2 Cor. 13:14

And despite your interpretation of certain events in the Old Testament, yes God in the Bible is described as all loving. You don’t have to believe that of course, but if we are to talk about his nature as described in the Bible to see if he fits the definition of a necessary being as part of the argument I made above, then I was showing you biblical support for that nature as you requested.

My objections to Russell’s claims are still valid. Here is what he wrote:

Russell wrote the following:

“If I were to suggest that . . . there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

The key to this is that Christians are not saying that since you can’t disprove God’s existence he must exist, just like a tea pot that can’t be proven must also exist.

Christians would say that they don’t believe in the tea pot because there is good plausible reasons not to. Likewise, they would say that they believe in God because there are valid and rational reasons to do so. His analogy and by extension, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Boot, and other similar attempts are flawed.

Robert W.

Bernerbit’s description is a fairly accurate understanding of our theology

It is a clear description and very informative. Unfortunately the premise seems like utter nonsense to me. Are Christians literally claiming that Jesus pops up through the past just so he can get a mention. Presumable he also pops up in the present and future too?

Comedy gold.

The key to this is that Christians are not saying that since you can’t disprove God’s existence he must exist, just like a tea pot that can’t be proven must also exist.

Yet that is precisely what some Christians are saying. They are saying “God exists. You can’t prove he doesn’t. I win.” You said this:

I find it interesting that you agree that science can’t disprove the existence of God. That is refreshing. I would guess you would agree then that to say that God definitely doesn’t exist is not based upon science. Then your believe that he doesn’t must be based upon something else. What would that be?

Which is really close to saying “God exists. You can’t prove he doesn’t. I win.” And by a circuitous route we end up here.

Christians would say that they don’t believe in the tea pot because there is good plausible reasons not to. Likewise, they would say that they believe in God because there are valid and rational reasons to do so. His analogy and by extension, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Boot, and other similar attempts are flawed.

I’ll try again. Christians (or anyone really) would say that they don’t belief in the teapot because there are good, plausible reasons not to such as lack of evidence. These same good, plausible reasons apply to gods who are similarly not evident or apparent. It isn’t any more complicated than that.

@Rober W

I believe that there are good, solid, rational basis to believe in God from the evidence we have, not upon the lack of evidence of his non existence.

Please be honest and say you have only ‘other evidence’, based on standards you have yet to share.