Are you sure God does not exist?

[AnimatedDirt]

I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<

Jesus isn't historical?  I wish I could give you the historical evidence...I'm unprepared as a lay-Christian.  That...and most Atheists aren't willing to do the ground work necessary to satisfy their own belief or disbelief for that matter.  I don't own the "ground work" myself.  I don't think you own the "ground work" for the opposite belief either.

[Sandra Craft]

I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<

Jesus isn't historical?  

A matter of considerable and ongoing debate.  And whether or not he was a god's way of intervening in humanity is completely up for grabs even if one does think it likely Jesus was historical.

[Ali]

I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<

Jesus isn't historical?  I wish I could give you the historical evidence...I'm unprepared as a lay-Christian.  That...and most Atheists aren't willing to do the ground work necessary to satisfy their own belief or disbelief for that matter.  I don't own the "ground work" myself.  I don't think you own the "ground work" for the opposite belief either.

Not much groundwork required for disbelief. I'm sure you're sick of people referencing "proof" required to not believe in unicorns, so I'll save that part.

[Sweetdeath]

I wou like evidence in a history book., not the bible or cuz you say so.

Napoleon lost the battle at waterloo.

Nobunaga oda often bedded his page boys, including the well known Ranmaru mori.

Hilter was an artist.

I can provide historic books to back this up.

I'm not talking about jesus, i'm talking about 'god.'

Jesus might of existed,  he was just human. I highly doubt he was the son of god.

[AnimatedDirt]

Not much groundwork required for disbelief. I'm sure you're sick of people referencing "proof" required to not believe in unicorns, so I'll save that part.

Thank you.  I think it's unnecessary to do so since we are both of that same belief.

[AnimatedDirt]

Jesus might of existed,  he was just human. I highly doubt he was the son of god.

With the internet...it's almost at your fingertips.  If even more interested, take a course from someone who believes his/her position and has the documentation that shows they at least have a grasp of what they are talking about.  Not that the typical Atheist would even give such a person the time of day.  Or look to someone that doesn't have an agenda.  A truely Agnostic professor on the matter(s).

I've said candidly, I can't do it.  I'm unprepared to do so.  I can tell you I do believe, some reasons off the top of my head and have heard others with more reason and further evidence...but I'm not equipped to do so.  I'm just a normal guy on a forum that I like, discussing a subject which is near to my heart and that I think I do have a perspective on that may help the average person asking questions. 

If you're interested, the information is available.  I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.

[Too Few Lions]

If you're interested, the information is available.  I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.

AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.

[AnimatedDirt]

AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.

Are you suggesting your experience is Truth?

[Too Few Lions]

AD I've pursued the evidence and there is none. Whether or not you want to believe in a historical Jesus is a matter of choice, no-one knows if he existed or not. If anyone tells you there's cast iron proof of Jesus' historical existence they're either lying or just unaware of the lack of evidence.

Are you suggesting your experience is Truth?

why would you infer that from my statement? I'm merely saying we don't have any cast iron evidence to know whether Jesus historically existed or not. I'm an agnostic when it comes to Jesus' historicity. Maybe your idea of 'evidence' differs from mine.

[Sandra Craft]

If you're interested, the information is available.  I'm quite certain that it won't be pursued though.

Well, I'm certainly glad someone finds the internet putting information right at their fingertips, I find internet searches so exasperating and exhausting that I don't bother using it to pursue topics I find immediately interesting, never mind those I'm only remotely interested in.

[Gawen]

I am amazed that this thread took off so fast and so quickly.

I am astounded that the OP dealt with special pleading and evidence and still I see (from AnimatedDirt):

And of course removal of ALL pain = infinitely loving.

God doesn't give brain tumors.

Or it's VERY rare that God intervenes with the flow of life and the hazards and sufferings therein..

No where is the believer (and likewise the non-believer) promised a life free from pain or suffering this side of salvation.

If you don't believe or believe the...evidence...

And 'equivocation', moving the goal posts, strawman, etc, etc, etc:

I'm sure there are cases where parents are walking their kids to school are hit and killed by cars or other reasons.  Who blames the parent?

Which answer do you want?  Is the parent a believer in God or is the parent an Atheist?  The deluded answer or the answer *you would give??  Either way is not the child loved?

Not to be chide, but some of you have been suckered and let AD take you off course because he can't answer the OP sufficiently. Not without special pleading. Honestly, AD must use special pleading due to the lack of providing sufficient evidence. The committing of several fallacies has become rather blasé as well.

[Gawen]

Thanks for posting that piece, Gawen. I read through it once, but I think that to give a proper response, I'll have to go through it again with a more critical eye.

Thanks and I can't wait. I was hoping someone would critique it.

I do agree that the vast majority (if not all) claims by the religious believers/theists are based in special pleading. It just doesn't seem possible for them to get anywhere without it.

I can't see any way either. I have been remiss, however. I left out wishful thinking.

[Gawen]

To be fair, I have known some theists who leave off the "except me".  They relate it to something like the Blind Men and the Elephant story (in fact, I think a theist was the first one who told me that story) and accept being one of the blind who have only a small, blurry part of the whole truth and practice that part of it (their religion) out of tradition and because that's what is comfortable for their culture and background.

The Blind men/Elephant story fits the same mold as using special pleading. It's like touching the elephant and the conversation goes like this:

BM1: Yep, I touched the "elephant". But it wasn't an elephant. It was a tree.

BM2: Nope, it was a rhinoceros.

BM3: Nope. I agree with BM1 and say it's a tree. And I'll go one step further to say it's a Cypress tree.

BM4: It was an elephant, I felt it move.

Back to BM1: Uh uh....it was a Pine tree and I felt it move too. The wind blew it

BM5: It was an Asian elephant and there's no breeze today.

and on and on and on until it gets so bad that the fundy Blind Man goes so far as to say "It was an invisible Baptist tree and everyone knows that Baptist trees can move by themselves. I know this because I have faith and it more valued by  blah, blah, blah." And that takes us to

...is that faith is the greater discipline, the greater test, and is therefore more valued by god in its teacher function.

What better way to describe special pleading?

Have you ever read any of Karen Armstrong's books?  I think it was in "A History of God" that she suggested that until about the 17th century the bible was generally regarded as metaphorical, and then a movement started that insisted it must be interpreted as literally true.  She found it interesting that atheism as we know it today began increasing sharply right after that.

No, but I think I have heard of her. And yes, I know the history somewhat.

I'm not sure of the chemical thing in the brain, though. But a meme sure sounds about right.

Even Sagan's definition of God as the sum total of the universe is special pleading. After all, the universe is defined as its own sum total. To call the universe God doesn't define the universe, but only renames the universe...and the universe already has a name.  Damn, saying that just made me dizzy... *chucklin*

[Gawen]

First: Any assertion is an assertion, which is therefore by default positive,

Had to stop you right there.
"I do not believe the sky is blue."
"I believe that the sky is not blue."

The above are assertions. One of them is positive...not both. So I'm not understanding you, I guess you need to explain?

[Sweetdeath]

I asked for historical evidence, not snark. :<

Jesus isn't historical?  

A matter of considerable and ongoing debate.  And whether or not he was a god's way of intervening in humanity is completely up for grabs even if one does think it likely Jesus was historical.

I have a feeling he doesn't want to answer me because there is no evidence to give.