# SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403 "2007-12-09T19:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/261 "2007-12-14T05:41:30Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] Got a better explaination? That is how the people who witnessed those events understood them. What alternative understanding would you place on them, and why is that one preferable? [/QUOTE] We have no testimony from anyone ever claiming to have witnessed such events. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/262 "2007-12-14T05:44:38Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] And this is why “objective evidence” is not always so objective. That something happens is objective, the reasons why are not always so clear. One person’s miracle is another person’s as yet unexplained scientific phenomena. [/quote] This doesn’t make sense at all. If it’s not objective, it’s not objective. Period. > [@](#): > > Agreed. I believe that Christianity is true, although I can’t formally prove it. However there is enough evidence (as opposed to proof) that I think that the alternate hypthesis (that is, that Jesus is not God) is less likely. What evidence would that be? I don’t think you really understand what constitutes scientific evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/263 "2007-12-14T05:56:32Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] This doesn’t make sense at all. If it’s not objective, it’s not objective. Period. What evidence would that be? I don’t think you really understand what constitutes scientific evidence. [/QUOTE] All you’re going to get back is either (yet again)“Well, you need to tell me what you would accept as evidence”, or(for the hundredth time) “I have evidence, but you wouldn’t accept it anyway, so why should I show it to you?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/264 "2007-12-14T05:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] Are we talking just about evidence in general, or do you mean evidence that you personally accept? Because if you mean that latter then your argument comes down to you youself. [/quote] How about the scientific standard for evidence? It actually has to demonstrate something. > [@](#): > > A few points: > > 1. God is not obliged to do anything. God’s refual to do the things you ask does not necessarily mean that he doesn’t exist. All it means is that if he does exist then he doesn’t take orders from you. Bully for him but that means that I am justofied in assuming he doesn’t exist and that he cannot make any moral judement on non-believers. > [@](#): > > 1. It is not exactly the same, since it lacks the mean manipulative element, but I can’t help but thinking thinking that this sort of argument is like the teenager saying that they refuse to believe that their parents love them until they buy them a car. No, it’s not like that at all. Not even a little bit. The teenager knows his parents exist. > [@](#): > > 1. Miracles, by their nature, are non-repeatable events. Once it is repeatable then it would be claimed that said miracle is really a natural effect and no evidence of God. This is logically false. An omnipotent God can perform the same miracle as many times as he wants. What makes an event “miraculous” is a violation of physical laws, not singularity of occurrence. Changing water into wine does not cease to be miraculous the 2nd time you do it. > [@](#): > > 1. Even if God did pony up with the miracles, does that really change anything? I mean there are already plenty of miracles that are attributed to God that you don’t believe happened, what difference will a few more make? Is the problem that you want to witness the miracles yourself, or is it that you just don’t believe miracles are possible? The problem is that there has never seen a single verifiable miracle in all of human history. Just one would be sufficient. > [@](#): > > I still maintain that Jesus was God is more likely than a delibrately desceptive magician (who is better than any other magician ever) or some sort of space alien. Occam dictates that fraud is always more likely than magic. Not that there is any evidence that anyone ever claimed that Jesus performed the nature miracles. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/265 "2007-12-14T06:02:01Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] No. He never met Jesus. Yes, but the nature of his “rising” is very ambiguous and Paul strongly implies that it was a spiritual, not a physical resurrection. Paul says nothing about an empty tomb or Jesus walking around in a physical body (he says Jesus “appeared” to people, which could any number of things). He also says that physical bodies cannot be resurrected and calls people fools for believing that they can. His appearance chronology also contradicts all four Gospels. [/QUOTE] I disagree with your analysis of 1 Corinthians 15. I think Paul is writing in reference to three possibilities, spiritual resurrection, physical resurrection (that i, rising to life in a new body) and re-animation (that is, rising to life in your old body). Paul argues for physical resurrection. The fools comment comes about because it appears that some are confusing re-animation with resurrection, and so Paul calls that confusion foolish, not the idea that we are resurrected with new bodies. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Not only that but says he didn’t get his information from any man but only from his own visionary experiences of Jesus. [/QUOTE] In Galatians, yes, although it is also worth noting that he also says there that he later consulted with the wider church, and found that they agreed with him. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Paul is the closest thing we have to a primary witness of Jesus in that he at least knew _other_ people who knew Jesus, but unfortunately he tells us next to nothing about how they perceived Jesus or conceptualized the resurrection. [/QUOTE] To the contrary, I think his letters tell us a great deal. Most importantly it gives us insight into the beliefs commonly held amoungst the churches at that time. So for instance one of the really striking parts about 1 Corinthians 15 is that it is talking about the resurrection of Jesus as if it is something commonly believed by the Corinthians, which he then uses to justify the resurrection of believers. [QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] There is no evidence that the empty tomb story or the claim of a physical resurrection (as distinguished from perceived spiritual “appearances”) existed before Mark’s Gospel, which was written 40 years after the fact by a non-witness. The empty tomb story also contains a number of historical implausibilities (aside from the supernatural) which indicate that is likely to be a fiction invented by Mark himself. [/QUOTE] A few points: 1. Some liberal scholars place the date of Mark at around 65AD, which would only make it about 30 (32 to be precise) years. Other conservative scholars place it even earlier than that. 2. When it comes to precisely when Mark was written and by who, there is little conclusive evidence either way in the text itself. The tradition of the early church however states that it was written by Mark, who was recording the stories of Peter, who was an eyewitness to Jesus. Personally I find this far more compelling than the other late dating theories, which are based on IMHO rather dubious presuppositions. 3. When it comes to recording history, 40 years is an incredably short time. We routinely accept accounts written far later in time. It is only because the Gospels talk about God that they are mistrusted. If they were secular documents they would be accepted without question. Calculon ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/266 "2007-12-14T06:36:25Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] I disagree with your analysis of 1 Corinthians 15. I think Paul is writing in reference to three possibilities, spiritual resurrection, physical resurrection (that i, rising to life in a new body) and re-animation (that is, rising to life in your old body). Paul argues for physical resurrection. The fools comment comes about because it appears that some are confusing re-animation with resurrection, and so Paul calls that confusion foolish, not the idea that we are resurrected with new bodies. [/quote] You are mistaken. Paul specifically says that the physical body rots and that the resurrected body is spiritual. > [@](#): > > In Galatians, yes, although it is also worth noting that he also says there that he later consulted with the wider church, and found that they agreed with him. They agreed with what, exactly? [quote] To the contrary, I think his letters tell us a great deal. Most importantly it gives us insight into the beliefs commonly held amoungst the churches at that time. So for instance one of the really striking parts about 1 Corinthians 15 is that it is talking about the resurrection of Jesus as if it is something commonly believed by the Corinthians, which he then uses to justify the resurrection of believers[/.quote] The striking thing is that it says nothing about an empty tomb or a physical resurrection. > [@](#): > > A few points: > > 1. Some liberal scholars place the date of Mark at around 65AD, which would only make it about 30 (32 to be precise) years. Other conservative scholars place it even earlier than that. Mainstream consensus is that it was 65-70 with most leaning to a post 70 date. That’s 40 years after the alleged crucifixion. The crucifixion did not occur in 33 CE, at least not if he was 33 years old when it happened. Jesus was not born in 1 CE but 4-6 BCE. The crucifixion would have occurred c. 28-30 CE (or possibly earlier). There is no serious NT scholarship which argues for an earlier date (even the 60’s is pushing it for the mainstream). Those arguments are made within apologetic contexts, not scholarly ones. Also, there is no such thing as “liberal NT scholarship.” There is good scholarship and there is bad scholarship. “liberal and conservative” has nothing to do with it. > [@](#): > > 1. When it comes to precisely when Mark was written and by who, there is little conclusive evidence either way in the text itself. The tradition of the early church however states that it was written by Mark, who was recording the stories of Peter, who was an eyewitness to Jesus. Personally I find this far more compelling than the other late dating theories, which are based on IMHO rather dubious presuppositions. Allow me to enlighten you then. The tradition that Mark was written by a secretary of Peter’s is based on a single claim by Papias (c. 130 CE) who is quoted by Eusebius as saying a secretary of Peter’s wrote down Peter’s words in no particular order. Papias claims he got this info from a guy named John the Presbyter (not to be confused with the apostle). Eusebius and others connected this alleged memoir with the Canonical Gospel of mark, but Papias gves no indication that this identification is accurate and an examination of GMark show that such an identification is all but impossible to support. First, the author of Mark does not identify himself by name and does not say that he knew Peter, talked to Peter, ever met Peter or got any information from any eyewitness. Secondly, the author is extremely hostile to Peter. Mark is a decidedly Pauline, anti-Jewish and anti-Petrine diatribe. Mark is very hostile to the apostles in general and to Peter in particular. He takes every opportunity to depict the apostles as being dense and not getting Jesus’ true message (reflecting the tension between Pauline communities and the Jerusalem cult in the last half of the first century). More to the point (and this is important) Mark does not give Peter any redemption after his betrayal. Mark does not grant Peter and appearance from Jesus. Mark’s Peter denies Jesus, runs away and that’s it. Now why would a Petrine memoir not include a Petrine witness of the resurrection? Wouldn’t that be the most important part? How does it make any sense to exclude it? Thirdly, the book is quote obviously a literary construction and is manifestly not a transcription of oral anecdotes. The literary structure of Mark, both in its chiastic forms and its use of the Hebrew Bible as a allusory template or “hypotext” preclude the possibility of transcribed oral tradition. GMark is a carefully constructed literary work. It should also be mentioned that Mark is a Greek composition which shows no signs of translation from Aramaic, the language of Peter and the language he would have dictated his memoirs in. Fourth, Mark makes a number of errors regarding Palestininan geography and Jewish laws and customs which show that his information could not have been collected from a Palestinian Jew. Mark’s passion, in particular, is so riddled with factual. historical and legal inaccuracies that it cannot be historical and cannot have come from an eyewitness. (I will address the specific errors in detail if you wish) Fifth, the book could not have been written during the lifetime of Peter. Mark knows about the destruction of the Temple which means that Peter was dead (at least by Christian tradition) when the book was written. To summarize, the canonical Gospel of Mark is an anonymous book written outside of Palestine in a Gentile language to a Gentile audience sometime during or after the Jewish-Roman War. The author is hostile to Jews and to the apostles. He does not know Jewish laws or customs. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not like Peter. He never makes any claim to have known Peter or to have ever been to Palestine. In 130 CE some guy said he heard from another guy that a secretary of Peter wrote his memoirs. If such a memoir ever existed, it isn’t canonical Mark. > [@](#): > > 1. When it comes to recording history, 40 years is an incredably short time. We routinely accept accounts written far later in time. It is only because the Gospels talk about God that they are mistrusted. If they were secular documents they would be accepted without question. It is a common claim from apologists that historians accept the veracity of non-Biblical or “secular” texts without question. This claim is completely and utterly false. Historians do no such thing. Nothing is accepted without corroboration, but some claims at least have the advantage of not being impossible. Should the claims of Homeric or Mahabharatic epics be accepted at face value? Why should the Bible get special treatment, especially when so much of it is demonstrably ahistorical? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/267 "2007-12-14T09:17:40Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] My point is that if something that is “proven” can later be shown to be false, then it was never proven in the first place. The same null hypothesis “proof” for the non-existence of God would have equally worked for the platypus. Since that was later shown to be false the null hypthesis proof is no proof at all. That is my point. Just repeating “null hypothesis” or “burden of proof” demonstrates nothing. Well then if you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, why do believe that he doesn’t? [/quote] This is appalling. First of all, no one would ever claim that the nonexistence of egg-laying mammals was “proven”. Science does not work on proof, but rather hypotheses and theories, all of which can be falsified. Similarly, no one claims that one can prove that god doesn’t exist. First of all, you’d need to carefully define god before we could even get started. Since there are an almost infinite number of possible gods, some of which would have no interaction with humanity, you’d have a problem. You might be able to prove that certain gods contain logical contradictions, but that is very limited. So why don’t we believe in god? The same reason we don’t really believe in the unfalsifiable IPU. It is nonsense to believe in extraordinary things without very strong evidence. Dio is now dealing with your supposed evidence (worth the prices of admission, IMO). You also do not understand the use of the null hypothesis. Far from proving anything, it is the default which we try to disprove. For instance, if we are trying to see if a drug cures cancer, the null hypothesis is that it does not, and we collect and analyze evidence to see what the probability is that the results can’t be explained by the null hypothesis. Because of the number of possible gods, the null hypothesis here is that none exist. That is not a proof, and no one claims it to be, but that is the only thing to provisionally accept without solid evidence for a particular god. Your belief in the NT is clearly very selective. I am not Islamic, but your Messiah lasted about five minutes in the big time, while their prophet not only lived but became powerful. If I were a Martian, I’d think they had a better case. (More historical also.) It doesn’t prove anything, but your rejection of Islam is just as justified as your rejection of the IPU, and with less evidence to support it. > [@](#): > > No. No you are not. In an argument if no-one provides any argument then either side is just as likely. You are positing that God does not exist, or at the very least that there is no reason to believe that God exists. Where is the evidence for your claim? Just stating that you are right until someone can prove you wrong is not much of a debate tactic. I’ve got into the proper null hypothesis above. Evidence against your god? How about contradictions in the Bible? It’s scientific and historical inaccuracy? Jesus cured someone by driving out demons. Do you believe in demons? Look, less than 20 years after Washington’s death Parson Weems was writing about the miracle of him hurling a dollar across the Potomac. Do you buy that also? You might reread Pecos Bill also. Without the special pleading (the thing the IPU analogy is all about) the Bible would be considered a valuable insight into a culture but no more accurate than the Greek myths. > [@](#): > > Just so that we are clear here, what sort of evidence would you accept? I would hate to spend a lot of time typing something just to have you declare it invalid. We just had a thread about this. Parting the Red Sea would be cool. In Exodus God does all sorts of convincing tricks. Why none today? ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/268 "2007-12-14T17:37:58Z")
I just wanted to say I’m getting a religious education just from **Diogenes the Cynic** ’s excoriation. **Dio** , are you a member of the fallen or just a ‘know your enemy’ type? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/269 "2007-12-14T17:46:52Z")
[QUOTE=Sitnam] I just wanted to say I’m getting a religious education just from **Diogenes the Cynic** ’s excoriation. **Dio** , are you a member of the fallen or just a ‘know your enemy’ type? [/QUOTE] Neither really, I just have a historical interest in the Bible and in the ancient Middle East. Christian origins is a particular topic of fascination for me. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/270 "2007-12-15T00:47:01Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] Are we talking just about evidence in general, or do you mean evidence that you personally accept? Because if you mean that latter then your argument comes down to you youself. [/quote] Verifiable evidence that makes it objectively reasonable to assume god exists. I’m not asking for absolute truth sine that’s impossible, and I’m not asking for something that will only convince me, since that would be futile. > [@](#): > > God is not obliged to do anything. God’s refual to do the things you ask does not necessarily mean that he doesn’t exist. All it means is that if he does exist then he doesn’t take orders from you. God isn’t obliged to do anything. But I’ve never understood why a being that so clearly and easily could prove its existence (but maybe not its absolute godhood) today and according to legend did so regularly a couple of thousand years ago and apparently has plans for mankind and likes attention would hide itself. At least not if those intentions were good for us. As an aside: the argument that faith excludes evidence is crap; even if god would prove himself to exist, that wouldn’t mean that I would necessarily believe in his good intentions or his god-hood. > [@](#): > > 1. Even if God did pony up with the miracles, does that really change anything? I mean there are already plenty of miracles that are attributed to God that you don’t believe happened, what difference will a few more make? Is the problem that you want to witness the miracles yourself, or is it that you just don’t believe miracles are possible? They’re all very old stories and have no evidence besides hear-say. Unless of course you’re a dogmatic catholic or belief some other sect that seems to come up with a few unproven miracles every couple of years. > [@](#): > > I still maintain that Jesus was God is more likely than a delibrately desceptive magician (who is better than any other magician ever) or some sort of space alien. > If that is the case, what were they doing? What did they have to gain from it all? What is the wider logic that makes that more likely? It seems those hypothesis raise more questions then they answer. There are plenty of people alive right now who are making a claim for god-like status. And jesus probably wouldn’t have had to be _that_ good a magician; and as I said, it’s all age old stories. Which does _not_ make them automatically more believable. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/271 "2007-12-15T04:00:39Z")
There is a lot of controversy whether jesus actually existed. Most of what is written comes long after his theoretical demise. Many may be worshiping some one who did not exist and are not aware of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/272 "2007-12-15T04:51:43Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] There is a lot of controversy whether jesus actually existed. Most of what is written comes long after his theoretical demise. Many may be worshiping some one who did not exist and are not aware of it. [/QUOTE] Heck, I’m a Jewish atheist and I accept with a shrug that Joshua bar-Joseph probably existed. The story is actually more plausible with him as a charismatic cult leader who died young (and thus didn’t live long enough to undermine himself with middle-aged craziness) rather than a complete fabrication. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/273 "2007-12-15T07:36:23Z")
My feelings as a Christian points me to a lord and savior as a fighter. It points to a man once in loneliness , surrounded by a few followers, recognized these jews for what they are , and summoned men to fight against them. And who gods truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and a man ,I read the the passages which tells how the lord at last rose to his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the blood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the jewish poison. Adolph Hitler speech April 12, 1922 ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/274 "2007-12-15T13:49:55Z")
And so it goes … > [@](#): > > In any event, a person may be perfectly sincere in their desire to provoke thought and not to cause offence; but I would think an unbiased person would easily understand that comparing someone’s cherisherd beliefs, no matter what they may be, to a childish story is going to cause offense (and as we know, some mean to!). Obviously not as great as, but akin to, Godwinizing an argument over history or society. Calculon post December 13, 2007 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/275 "2007-12-15T14:26:16Z")
[QUOTE=Calculon] My point is that if something that is “proven” can later be shown to be false, then it was never proven in the first place. The same null hypothesis “proof” for the non-existence of God would have equally worked for the platypus. Since that was later shown to be false the null hypthesis proof is no proof at all. That is my point. Just repeating “null hypothesis” or “burden of proof” demonstrates nothing. Well then if you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, why do believe that he doesn’t? No. No you are not. In an argument if no-one provides any argument then either side is just as likely. You are positing that God does not exist, or at the very least that there is no reason to believe that God exists. Where is the evidence for your claim? Just stating that you are right until someone can prove you wrong is not much of a debate tactic. Just so that we are clear here, what sort of evidence would you accept? I would hate to spend a lot of time typing something just to have you declare it invalid. Got a better explaination? That is how the people who witnessed those events understood them. What alternative understanding would you place on them, and why is that one preferable? Calculon. [/QUOTE] We cannot prove that the people who claim to have seen the resurrection were telling the truth any more than the people who have claimed to see Elvis or John Kennedy. It is a matter of who or what one believes. I could say I witnessed a UFO but that doesn’t make it fact. Some may believe me, some not. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2007, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/276 "2007-12-15T18:20:21Z")
[QUOTE=monavis] We cannot prove that the people who claim to have seen the resurrection were telling the truth any more than the people who have claimed to see Elvis or John Kennedy. It is a matter of who or what one believes. I could say I witnessed a UFO but that doesn’t make it fact. Some may believe me, some not. Monavis [/QUOTE] We don’t even have to go that far. It isn’t necessary to evaluate “resurrection” testimony until it is first proven that any such claims ever existed in the first place. We have no direct evidence – no first hand claim – that anyone ever claimed to have seen Jesus rise from the dead. ---
**Author:** ![Find\_Friends](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@Find\_Friends](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Find_Friends)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/277 "2007-12-17T19:32:12Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] He also says that physical bodies cannot be resurrected and calls people fools for believing that they can. His appearance chronology also contradicts all four Gospels. The empty tomb story also contains a number of historical implausibilities (aside from the supernatural) which indicate that is likely to be a fiction invented by Mark himself. [/QUOTE] I’m interested. Where does Paul say this about physical resurrection? What are the historical implausibilities of Mark’s account of the empty tomb? * * * Good point about the contradictons with the four Gospels. There is no reason for Paul to leave off the primacy of the women as witnesses, and it isn’t likely that the older disciples would give him so much info, yet leave off the women. It’s far more likely that the later-written Gospels involved additional lore that Paul would not and could not have heard of, because of the timing. (And of course it’s interesting that only “John” has Mary of Magdala believing only _ **after** _ at least one disciple, although she still sees the empty tomb ahead of Peter and the Beloved Disciple.) * * * (Look to the top to see the member name… - Me.) ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/278 "2007-12-17T20:08:02Z")
[QUOTE=True Blue Jack] I’m interested. Where does Paul say this about physical resurrection? [/quote] 1 Corinthians 15:35-55 > [@](#): > > 35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. > > 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. > If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven. > > 50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” > [@](#): > > What are the historical implausibilities of Mark’s account of the empty tomb? I’ll link you to Peter Kirby’s piece on the [Historicity of the Empty Tomb](http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/index.html). The major implausibility is that the Romans did not turn over bodies for burial and it is highly unlikely that Pilate would have done so for a jewsh insurgent. There are numerous other problems with the story, though. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/279 "2007-12-17T20:44:10Z")
[QUOTE=Czarcasm] If one cannot use ridicule, or compare belief in one deity to another being that is just as unlikely to exist, or ask for evidence, how can one _effectively_ debate atheism vs. religion? Is there a way to do it that will not offend the religious? Could someone give me an example? [/QUOTE] Are you serious? How can a position that is, after all, logically correct, be supportable only with _ridicule_? Surely ridicule is the tool of _weak_ positions, not strong ones! I fail to see how using ridicule is an _effective_ debating technique. That’s my whole point. It is “effective” only in playing to an audience that already agrees with you. It isn’t needed in this case. Nothing wrong with asking for evidence - I don’t see that as “ridicule”. Unlike the old Santa Claus comparison, you might even develop a good debate out of it. As for the “comparison with Santa Claus” thing, I’ve already posted an example upthread of how this could be done in a non-inherently insulting manner, before your post. To quote myself: > [@](#): > > What about this instead: > > 'Santa is a figure in a myth about the nature of giving, the so-called ‘spirit of Christmas’. No adult seriously believes in the literal existance of a guy in a red suit who lives at the North Pole, but many believe that gift-giving and the like represents real and wortwhile values. These do not have any “existence” external to those holding the mythology but are, like “love”, nonetheless a reality. > > Similarly, it is not necessary to literally believe in the existence of a guy with a white beard who lives in heaven to believe in the sort of truths represented by that mythology - truths concerning the nature of salvation, redemption, and humanity’s place in the cosmos. Religion is among other things a manner of working out the nature of these truths in a manner comprehensible to people. A redeemer who represents perfect love is a way of comprehending the nature of love and foregiveness, often in a way that is quite positive for those who hold to it; a deity of power any mystery such as the OT god is a way of making comprehensible the power and mystery of nature. > > In some respects the mythology has outlived its usefulness - we know more than we did about nature and have no need of mythology to explain, for example, the nature of evolution. In other respects it remains useful, in purely human terms. > > Those who scoff at the childishness of Santa Claus are missing the point. They do not understand how mythology works. Similarly, theists who literally believe in a deity are making the equal but opposite error, that of taking myth as literal.’ Is this not more effective than “Your god is no more real than _Santa Claus_ - disprove that, huh, huh”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2007, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/280 "2007-12-18T01:13:12Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Are you serious? How can a position that is, after all, logically correct, be supportable only with _ridicule_? Surely ridicule is the tool of _weak_ positions, not strong ones! I fail to see how using ridicule is an _effective_ debating technique. That’s my whole point. It is “effective” only in playing to an audience that already agrees with you. It isn’t needed in this case. Nothing wrong with asking for evidence - I don’t see that as “ridicule”. Unlike the old Santa Claus comparison, you might even develop a good debate out of it. As for the “comparison with Santa Claus” thing, I’ve already posted an example upthread of how this could be done in a non-inherently insulting manner, before your post. To quote myself: Is this not more effective than “Your god is no more real than _Santa Claus_ - disprove that, huh, huh”? [/QUOTE] Not exactly how I put it, but if it makes you feel any better… Why don’t you go ahead and start a thread on the topic with that selfsame quote as the OP, and we’ll see how calmly the theologians respond. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=15)