Fundies believe that God controlled the hands of those who did write the Bible.
Provable fact. Until proven, it’s just a rumor. Works both ways.
God was busy back then. It took him 23 years to reveal the Koran to Muhammad.
My position is that you haven’t proved your position, so if it’s possible to “win”, I do so when you admit you cannot. I don’t know what position you *think *I’ve taken.
Nope. It only works one way. It is not necessary to prove a negative.
When you use words like “mythology” (upthread) it’s pretty clear what position you’ve taken.
For Yahweh to not be a myth, there’d have to be evidence for its existence. You admit you have none and can provide none, so Yahweh can fairly be described as mythological just like Zeus or Osiris or Odin. On what basis do you object to describing these four gods as mythological? Are they not? Are you suggesting I have to prove they are, because my method for doing so would be to cite the common definition of the term and describe how it applies. Do you believe that Zeus and Osiris and Odin are mythological? Do you believe they are not mythological? What’s your definition of the term?
Myths are bigger than facts, as they explain the relationship between humans and the world.
Tell the story of Loki in mare form getting pregnant by the stallion Svaðilfari and bearing Sleipnir the 8 legged horse to the kids on the bus.
Hey, it’s a tale of divine morality.
And they’ve heard of Loki! Just not in that way.
Right?
Teach the Controversy. 
Ah, so the reason childbirth is painful is not that human skulls are bigger in relation to bodies than animal skulls, but that Eve screwed up.
Great explanation.
Actually the Torah is called the Five Books of Moses because he wrote them. Except he didn’t.
And we all know that God is too big an executive to dirty himself with writing. He just dictates.
I think the problem here is that we’ve once again shifted the question. “Do you believe X” is a binary proposition - you either believe it or you don’t. Whether you know it is a different question. What the probability of it being true is another different question (and a far more useful one IMHO, one that should absolutely inform the previous two questions).
If neither side to the argument “does X exist/does X not exist” can be proven, then sure, there’s a standoff. But most people on the other side of the debate don’t think “X doesn’t exist”. The debate is actually - “do we have good reason to believe X exists/do we not have good reason to believe X exists”. And in that case, one side not being able to prove that X exists is, in fact, a knock-down argument! The burden of proof lies with those making the claim, not with those disputing it. There is no balance here, any more than there is a balance between those who claim that there’s a psychic walrus on neptune and those who do not believe that there is a psychic walrus on neptune.
Tithe 1/10th of your income to me every month, and I promise you, my deity will intercede when you die, and you will go to Spaghetti Paradise, with its beer fountains, no hangovers, and many beautiful men and women willing to shower you with attention in exactly the way you want. But believe in other heavens without strong convincing evidence, and my deity will send you to hell, where the noodles are soggy and overcooked and the only available beer is Bud Lime.
Now, you can’t prove I’m wrong. Do you believe me? Is it fair to say we “just can’t know”? Do you feel justified in spending even a minute of your time, energy, or money aiming to get that (super fucking awesome) afterlife? Because there’s exactly as much hard evidence for its existence as there is for the existence of the Christian afterlife, or the Muslim afterlife, or any other afterlife.
May I casually recommend that if you’re looking for an alternative to dying, you’d be better off looking into transhumanism, cryonics, and medical science? Yeah, the science is nowhere near actually pulling immortality off, but at least it’s going in the right direction and produces tangible results.
If someone claims a fact, and then turns around and claims that that fact can’t be proven, then they have just admitted that they cannot fulfill their burden of proof. They’ve already lost the argument. At least, that’s what my friend the psychic walrus from Neptune tells me.
(Seriously, replace “god” in these arguments with any other fanciful thing that may or may not exist but which we have no real reason to believe in, and it becomes blatantly obvious how silly it is. It’s only because of how culturally entrenched religion is that it isn’t equally obvious how silly it is to give god concepts this privileged position away from the burden of proof.)
The null hypothesis has to be that no gods exist, because there are vast numbers of possible gods and no a priori reason to choose among them. In most cultures though the a priori reason is that our parents or our cultures believe in them, but that is not a good reason. If you want to refute the null hypothesis, you need to provide strong evidence for it.
So no Mexican standoff. The guns of the theists don’t appear to have any bullets in them.
I don’t agree. The “vast numbers” are simply a result of people trying to personify a Creator that they sense exists but cannot in any way envision. They therefore create their own vision based on their cultural beliefs. Therefore, one would expect there to be almost as many representations of “God” as there are cultures. It therefore neither proves or disproves anything.
Because there’s an irrelevant difference between them? If there were no differences, it wouldn’t be an analogy.
Why does that difference matter to you? I don’t think it does.
The old “Different names but the same god” bullshit, which doesn’t hold water if you’ve had even a superficial education in mythology.
Cannot in any way envision? Aren’t there numerous statues and carvings and other artwork (admittedly a lot of it created after the diety’s peak popularity) depicting any number of gods?
“Leda and the Swan” alone must account for a not-insignificant number of artworks.
Yet, most of them all say that they are the one true way, and that cannot be true.
Maybe one of them is, but two of them cannot be.