SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
OK, this is another one of the logical flaws that has been bugging me this entire thread. The whole “burden of proof” argument. Put simply in formal logic there is no such thing as a “default position”, “null hypothesis” or anything else of that nature. It is a misunderstaning that seems all to common in these sorts of discussions.
[/quote]
You’ve just denied the validity of the very tools needed for anyone to prove anything. I don’t know where you received your training in formal logic, because it bears no similarity to anything I was taught.

So when it comes to God, where there is no definitive proof either for or against the existence of God, to say that God must not exist is an abuse of logic. At best we can say that we are unsure as to whether or not God exists, and that either side may be right. We can go beyond that, either to say that we believe that God does or does not exist based on some other non-conclusive arguments, but to do so requires trust in the truthfulness of belief. Or to put it in another way, to say that God exists requires faith, but then so to does the belief that God does not exist. Just like the existence of God is it unproven and possibly unprovable, and therefore reuqires faith to believe.

I am not trying to convince you that God exists I am trying to convince you that the IPU Vs God argument is a bad one, quite independently of God’s existence.

Can you prove the IPU doesn’t exist? If not, shouldn’t it get the same “unknown” label as God?

[Jesticulator]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
1.A is objectively meaningless.
2.B has no objectively measurable difference from A.
3.Therefore, A is objectively meaningless.

If you can break step 2, please do so.
[/quote]
Uh … 3. Therefore, **B ** is objectively meaningless. Right?

Anyway, why have you introduced “objectively meaningless” as a substitute for “completely unjustified”, in response to **Calculon’s ** post?

As for the argument itself, how do you suggest determining whether the premises are true, especially premise #2?

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, of course there are those who become theists in rebellion, but this is just a variation on parental influence. As my limited understanding of the subject suggests, Christianity spread in large part because of Constantine, as paternal an influence as it gets, promoted it and had the armies to enforce it. I’m prepared to be corrected on this, of course.

[/QUOTE]

I just don’t think the theory has any descriptive power. You are now adding to it to include goverments as parental figures, which I think is quite a stretch. Secondly, you are wrong about Constantine. The empire was already majority Christian by the time he came to power. He merely recognised what was already established. Thirdly, even if it is true then presumably it would follow that people are only atheists because their parents are atheists. If not then how is this not some form of special pleading? Fourthly, again even if this theory is true it does not follow that any relgion is wrong because of it. The inherent truth of statements is indepependent of why people believe them.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

How about:

1.A is objectively meaningless.
2.B has no objectively measurable difference from A.
3.Therefore, A is objectively meaningless.

If you can break step 2, please do so.

[/QUOTE]

When talking about spiritual/supernatual events, objective measure is meaningless. BTW I am assuming that in point 3 you mean B, not A.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

But they are comparable. Each theory requires evidence in support. Evidence is gathered and empirically analyzed. Results are compared. Evolution is a better fit. Evolution, for the moment, wins.

[/QUOTE]

But they are not comparable as for truth value, as one is true and one is not. This is the comparison that the God Vs IPU argument is making.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Well, I’m making certain assumptions here, but I suspect it’s far more likely you accept Christianity and reject Islam because you were born to Christian parents and not Muslim ones.

I could be wrong, of course. I can only hypothesize in the absence of evidence.

[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, however

1. You are right that since I cannot be re-born to Muslim parents, that statement is non-falsifiable and therefore an article of faith
2. Even if true it does not follow that Christianity is neccessarily false. All that it would show is that I am easily lead.

FWIW I maintain that I would still be a Christian, but then of course I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Calculon

[Bryan_Ekers]

Whoops, typo! The form should indeed be:

1.A is objectively meaningless.
2.B has no objectively measurable difference from A.
3.Therefore, B is objectively meaningless.

Thank you for pointing this out. As for your other comments, I prefer “objectively meaningless” over “completely unjustified” because the former sets a tougher standard. After all, anything can be “justified”, and “completely” could mean 100% or just “until it looks satisfactory”.

As for determining objective meaninglessness, I look for objective meaning, I invite people to supply objective meaning or avenues of research that might lead to objective meaning, I survey the subject for examples of objective meaning, and if I don’t find any in a reasonable amount of time (admittedly, an arbitrary determination, but on issues like God, I figure there are so many followers who have been working on it for so long that if they had found something, it’d be widely disseminated), I operate on the assumption there is none.

I’m prepared to re-evaluate at any time, of course.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
You’ve just denied the validity of the very tools needed for anyone to prove anything. I don’t know where you received your training in formal logic, because it bears no similarity to anything I was taught.

[/QUOTE]

No, the null hypothesis proves nothing. Worse than that, as demonstrated, it can lead people to false conclusions. What is needed to prove things is not the null hypthesis, but premises that are known to be true. That is how logic is properly applied.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Can you prove the IPU doesn’t exist? If not, shouldn’t it get the same “unknown” label as God?
[/QUOTE]

From first principles, no I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so then I would say that therefore it’s existence is unknown. However given the premise that Christianity is true I can demonstrate the that IPU necessarily contradicts Christianity and therefore is false. The strength of my argument then rests on whether or not Christianity is true.

Calculon.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Whoops, typo! The form should indeed be:

1.A is objectively meaningless.
2.B has no objectively measurable difference from A.
3.Therefore, B is objectively meaningless.

Thank you for pointing this out. As for your other comments, I prefer “objectively meaningless” over “completely unjustified” because the former sets a tougher standard. After all, anything can be “justified”, and “completely” could mean 100% or just “until it looks satisfactory”.

As for determining objective meaninglessness, I look for objective meaning, I invite people to supply objective meaning or avenues of research that might lead to objective meaning, I survey the subject for examples of objective meaning, and if I don’t find any in a reasonable amount of time (admittedly, an arbitrary determination, but on issues like God, I figure there are so many followers who have been working on it for so long that if they had found something, it’d be widely disseminated), I operate on the assumption there is none.

I’m prepared to re-evaluate at any time, of course.
[/QUOTE]

In the intests of understanding you better, can you give a more expanded explaination of “objective meaning”. Does it mean things that can be measured scientifically? Is that what you mean?

Or how about the case of someone I know. He says he came to believe in Jesus because he had an unhappy life (estranged from family, ect), as well as some medical issues (non life threatening skin issues). He then had a vision of Jesus in a dream telling him that he would heal his life including his medical condition, and then when he woke up his skin condition was healed. So he then became a Christian. Is that sort of thing what you mean by “objective meaning”? Not just an experience but something external and measurable like healing?

Calculon

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
When evaluating an argument, “true” and “false” are not the only possible assessments. It is also possible to decide that the truth value of a statement is “unknown” given the evidence presented. And it is this assessment that should be given to statements if there is no conclusive proof that they are either true or false. To do otherwise will clearly lead you into error.

[/quote]

I will accept this, as long as you accept that the truth value of the existence of god and the spaghetti monster is roughly the same until you provide evidence either way (since there is no evidence provided by me).

So for instance, take the statement “there is a mammal that lays eggs”. To the 1780’s European naturalist, there was no evidence that such a creature existed. So if they followed the “burden of proof” argument, then they would conclude that there was no such creature. However there was also no conclusive proof that such a creature did not exist, so it would also be possible to say that the answer was “unknown”.

But practically, the statement that there was no such animal would have worked at least as well and simplify the model. Science isn’t infallible; it’s just a way to figure out what the best working theory is given the current evidence, and it’s clearly capable of adapting to better/newer evidence, as you demonstrate below. For some reason, religions seem to have a lot harder time doing that.

Later discoveries in Australia later revealed that there was not noe, but two mammals that lay egss, the platypus and the echnida. So in this case following the “burden of proof” argument would lead you to a demonstrably false conclusion.

Which was corrected according to evidence. Are you seeing a pattern here, 'cause I am.

So when it comes to God, where there is no definitive proof either for or against the existence of God, to say that God must not exist is an abuse of logic.

If anyone said in this thread that God must not exist I may have missed it. I certainly didn’t, and neither would any serious atheist. It’s impossible to disprove the existence of many things. Like the spaghetti monster. Or (many interpretations of a) god.

At best we can say that we are unsure as to whether or not God exists, and that either side may be right. We can go beyond that, either to say that we believe that God does or does not exist based on some other non-conclusive arguments, but to do so requires trust in the truthfulness of belief.

If you want to posit beings that requires evidence. I am not positing any gods, so I don’t require evidence so until you get off your butt and provide some evidence I’m in a logically better position than you in this argument.

Or to put it in another way, to say that God exists requires faith, but then so to does the belief that God does not exist

I know that whatever god you’re positing (and you are positing a god here - and gods aren’t little fluffy bunnies that can be hidden anywhere - they are very powerful beings that require extraordinary evidence ) has not been proven to exist. In fact you’ve not provided even a hint of evidence. Just as much evidence, in fact, as I have provided for the existence of the spaghetti monster. Are you finally seeing what the argument is about?

So since you insist, if that argument was put to me I would point out that the statement that there is no more proof for Jesus (since my version of theism is Xianity) is false, since there are historically reliable accounts of Jesus performing miralces, most notably being raised from the dead, that are simply not there with the IPU. Other theists may give other answers, and I don’t want to speak for them, just myself.

Ok fine. How even if the accounts of Jesus performing miracles, being raised from the dead, hist sayings etc etc are entirely accurate historical records, how does that prove that God exists , except that Jesus said so?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
No, the null hypothesis proves nothing.
[/quote]

A null hypothesis isn’t supposed to prove anything. It’s supposed to be overcome. A null hypothesis is presumed to be true until it is refuted by an alternative. The non-existence of God is is the logical default presumption. It does not have to be proven. It has to be disproven.

From first principles, no I can’t prove that it doesn’t exist, so then I would say that therefore it’s existence is unknown. However given the premise that Christianity is true I can demonstrate the that IPU necessarily contradicts Christianity and therefore is false. The strength of my argument then rests on whether or not Christianity is true.

So you admit that there is no more reason to believe in God than to believe in the IPU. I can just as easily demonstrate that Christianity necessarily contradicts the IPU, therefore Christianity must be false.

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
I just don’t think the theory has any descriptive power. You are now adding to it to include goverments as parental figures, which I think is quite a stretch.
[/quote]
Well, governments, social orders, cultures… whatever. They all mush together anyway. The notion of trying to separate them is fairly recent.

Secondly, you are wrong about Constantine. The empire was already majority Christian by the time he came to power.

Am I? Was it? Okay, whatever.

Thirdly, even if it is true then presumably it would follow that people are only atheists because their parents are atheists. If not then how is this not some form of special pleading?

Well, at least I was kind enough to recognize exceptions. I didn’t say people were theists only because their parents were, but probably because their parents were. And sure… if one is raised without theism, and possibly raised to distrust theism, then I can see atheism being a likely result. So?

again even if this theory is true it does not follow that any relgion is wrong because of it. The inherent truth of statements is indepependent of why people believe them.

Exactly. So if a lot of people believe in God yet virtually none believe in the IPU, we can’t say this makes God more true than the IPU. They’re of equal truth.

When talking about spiritual/supernatual events, objective measure is meaningless.

Cool. So we’ll have no spiritual interference in secular law or science classes, please, which at least try for some degree of objective measure.

But they are not comparable as for truth value, as one is true and one is not. This is the comparison that the God Vs IPU argument is making.

Actually, it’s not true that evolution is more true than plhogi-whatever. Evolution just has tons and tons and tons upon tons of evidence supporting it, while phloggi-went-a-courtin’ has very little (and creationism none, incidentally). It’s conceivable that some huge chunk of counter-evidence could be discovered tomorrow, suggesting a major shift in current Evolution Theory. This evidence would be studied minutely, of course, and either refuted or assimilated, with the Theory adapting accordingly.

Compare that to the five-day bible. Is there any evidence to study, any way to determine which theory is more likely to be true? If it’s a spiritual matter, and thus immune to objective measurement, then why only a five-day bible? Why not one in which creation takes four days, or fifty days? How much can the material be changed? Can all of it be changed?

1. You are right that since I cannot be re-born to Muslim parents, that statement is non-falsifiable and therefore an article of faith

No, it’s a matter of statistics. I’m not arbitrarily declaring that Christian parents tend to raise Christian children and Muslim parents tend to raise Muslim children - it’s clearly demonstrated everywhere you look.

2. Even if true it does not follow that Christianity is neccessarily false. All that it would show is that I am easily lead.

No more so than most of humanity, absorbing their parents’ faiths and culture.

FWIW I maintain that I would still be a Christian, but then of course I would say that, wouldn’t I?

I don’t know. As a matter of minor curiosity, do you have any Muslim or Jewish friends? Can you imagine yourself having been raised by their parents?

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]
I will accept this, as long as you accept that the truth value of the existence of god and the spaghetti monster is roughly the same until you provide evidence either way (since there is no evidence provided by me).
Fine. See evidence given above

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

But practically, the statement that there was no such animal would have worked at least as well and simplify the model. Science isn’t infallible; it’s just a way to figure out what the best working theory is given the current evidence, and it’s clearly capable of adapting to better/newer evidence, as you demonstrate below. For some reason, religions seem to have a lot harder time doing that.

Which was corrected according to evidence. Are you seeing a pattern here, 'cause I am.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

If anyone said in this thread that God must not exist I may have missed it. I certainly didn’t, and neither would any serious atheist. It’s impossible to disprove the existence of many things. Like the spaghetti monster. Or (many interpretations of a) god.

[/QUOTE]

Well then if you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist, why do believe that he doesn’t?

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

If you want to posit beings that requires evidence. I am not positing any gods, so I don’t require evidence so until you get off your butt and provide some evidence I’m in a logically better position than you in this argument.

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

I know that whatever god you’re positing (and you are positing a god here - and gods aren’t little fluffy bunnies that can be hidden anywhere - they are very powerful beings that require extraordinary evidence ) has not been proven to exist. In fact you’ve not provided even a hint of evidence. Just as much evidence, in fact, as I have provided for the existence of the spaghetti monster. Are you finally seeing what the argument is about?

[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

Ok fine. How even if the accounts of Jesus performing miracles, being raised from the dead, hist sayings etc etc are entirely accurate historical records, how does that prove that God exists , except that Jesus said so?
[/QUOTE]

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.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
Or how about the case of someone I know. He says he came to believe in Jesus because he had an unhappy life (estranged from family, ect), as well as some medical issues (non life threatening skin issues). He then had a vision of Jesus in a dream telling him that he would heal his life including his medical condition, and then when he woke up his skin condition was healed. So he then became a Christian. Is that sort of thing what you mean by “objective meaning”? Not just an experience but something external and measurable like healing?
[/quote]

That’s not objective or measurable at all. You have no reason to correlate the clearing up of a skin condition with the dream. Most skin conditions clear up eventually. That’s hardly a very remarkable story. This is what we call “confirmation bias.” It’s also a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because something happens after X doesn’t mean it happened because of X. Not only that but when X = magic, it cannot even be considered as a possible hypothesis unless all non-magical explanations have been eliminated. What you have is a guy who fallaciously attributed a trivial and unremarkable event to magic. That’s not objective evidence, it’s a purely subjective (not to mention rather naive) interpretation of natural events. How does he know that invisible, healing elves did not clear up his acne while he slept?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
In the intests of understanding you better, can you give a more expanded explaination of “objective meaning”. Does it mean things that can be measured scientifically? Is that what you mean?
[/quote]
Yes, it does.

Or how about the case of someone I know. He says he came to believe in Jesus because he had an unhappy life (estranged from family, ect), as well as some medical issues (non life threatening skin issues). He then had a vision of Jesus in a dream telling him that he would heal his life including his medical condition, and then when he woke up his skin condition was healed. So he then became a Christian. Is that sort of thing what you mean by “objective meaning”? Not just an experience but something external and measurable like healing?

I can’t objectively measure something described so vaguely. For all I know, your friend is a disaffected teenager whose acne cleared up one day. This kind of stuff happens with or without Jesus dreams, so why would I assume the two are connected?

Anyway, the logic you’re using is so far removed from the logic I’m using that we’re not actually accomplishing anything. As a final effort:

1. IF Christianity is true, then the IPU is false.
2. IF the IPU is true, Christianity is false.

Both of these statements are equally true, given that Christianity and IPU are contrary, but they say nothing about which, if either, premise is true.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Well, governments, social orders, cultures… whatever. They all mush together anyway. The notion of trying to separate them is fairly recent.
Am I? Was it? Okay, whatever.

Well, at least I was kind enough to recognize exceptions. I didn’t say people were theists only because their parents were, but probably because their parents were. And sure… if one is raised without theism, and possibly raised to distrust theism, then I can see atheism being a likely result. So?

[/QUOTE]

So wait, I am confued. What exactly was this theiry desigend to explain again?

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Exactly. So if a lot of people believe in God yet virtually none believe in the IPU, we can’t say this makes God more true than the IPU. They’re of equal truth.
Cool. So we’ll have no spiritual interference in secular law or science classes, please, which at least try for some degree of objective measure.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Fallacy of popularity and all that. Still I believe in God because of what I believe has happened (like Jesus being raised from the dead), not because lots of other people believe in him.

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

Actually, it’s not true that evolution is more true than plhogi-whatever. Evolution just has tons and tons and tons upon tons of evidence supporting it, while phloggi-went-a-courtin’ has very little (and creationism none, incidentally). It’s conceivable that some huge chunk of counter-evidence could be discovered tomorrow, suggesting a major shift in current Evolution Theory. This evidence would be studied minutely, of course, and either refuted or assimilated, with the Theory adapting accordingly.

Compare that to the five-day bible. Is there any evidence to study, any way to determine which theory is more likely to be true? If it’s a spiritual matter, and thus immune to objective measurement, then why only a five-day bible? Why not one in which creation takes four days, or fifty days? How much can the material be changed? Can all of it be changed?

[/QUOTE]

Before we get too far along with this, do you have an answer to the October 14 Vs October 15 English history books that I asked a while ago?

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]

No, it’s a matter of statistics. I’m not arbitrarily declaring that Christian parents tend to raise Christian children and Muslim parents tend to raise Muslim children - it’s clearly demonstrated everywhere you look.
No more so than most of humanity, absorbing their parents’ faiths and culture.
I don’t know. As a matter of minor curiosity, do you have any Muslim or Jewish friends? Can you imagine yourself having been raised by their parents?
[/QUOTE]

Some Muslim. No so much with the Jewish, but just because I don’t know any. I don’t really know where this is going though. As for me personally, since no-one here really knows me I can claim what I like and no-one can contradict me. Also, I think there is no such thing as “Jewish”, “Muslim” or “Christian” parents. You are going to see as much variation in parenting styles within faiths as you will see across them. Some of my Christian friends had very different parents to mine.

Calculon.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Calculon

So for instance to Christians, the testimony of the apostles that Jesus did really rise from the dead is a reason to believe in Christianity.

There actually is no such testimony from the apostles. We have no direct testimony at all from any apostles. There is actually no real evidence that the direct followers of Jesus ever claimed he had physically risen from the dead.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Yes, it does.

I can’t objectively measure something described so vaguely. For all I know, your friend is a disaffected teenager whose acne cleared up one day. This kind of stuff happens with or without Jesus dreams, so why would I assume the two are connected?

[/QUOTE]

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=Bryan Ekers]

Anyway, the logic you’re using is so far removed from the logic I’m using that we’re not actually accomplishing anything. As a final effort:

1. IF Christianity is true, then the IPU is false.
2. IF the IPU is true, Christianity is false.

Both of these statements are equally true, given that Christianity and IPU are contrary, but they say nothing about which, if either, premise is true.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

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.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
There actually is no such testimony from the apostles. We have no direct testimony at all from any apostles. There is actually no real evidence that the direct followers of Jesus ever claimed he had physically risen from the dead.
[/QUOTE]

Out of interest, do you consider Paul to be a “direct follower” of Jesus? Both Romans and 1 Corinthians are universally regarded as being written by him, and both talk of Jesus being raised from the dead.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

[QUOTE=Calculon]

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.

[/quote]

I am not positing that god exists or not, I am positing that until you provide evidence his or hers or its existence is just as likely as that of the spaghetti monster. And you don’t believe the spaghetti monster exists and neither do I.

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.

I’ll try to be reasonable here, but it’s hard given the feats attributed to God. For a god of christian proportions to exists (you know, all-knowing, all-powerful, created the universe and everything in it etc.) I will accept his existence, barring future evidence to the contrary, if he can do a couple of relatively minor miracles, like say put two of every animal in a wooden boat that can actually sail, transform a couple of liters of water into wine and speak from a burning bush (and make sense). At least a few of these feats should be reproducible or at least recorded using accepted scientific practices and instrumentation. Note that I don’t require this god to prove he created anything relevant to the state of the universe or even the earth.

Got a better explaination?

Of that jesus did everything that was described in the NT? I don’t believe much of it is true, but if it is, Jesus was either an exceptional being or a very good (and cynical) illusionist He could be an outer space alien and it would make sense. Where does god come in?

[Bryan_Ekers]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
So wait, I am confued. What exactly was this theiry desigend to explain again?
[/quote]
The theory’s fine, I just don’t want to spend 50 pages discussing the history of Christianity. I cheerfully admit my ignorance of it.

Agreed. Fallacy of popularity and all that. Still I believe in God because of what I believe has happened (like Jesus being raised from the dead), not because lots of other people believe in him.

Did you witness it, or are you relying on the accounts of others? In theory, if I wanted to test evolution, I guess I could spend ten years getting educated on the subject and digging for my own fossils or doing genetic research and whatnot. What’s the spiritual equivalent?

Before we get too far along with this, do you have an answer to the October 14 Vs October 15 English history books that I asked a while ago?

I must have missed this one. It’s not a compelling counterpoint. The 5-day bible example I proposed is in response to creationists who claim Genesis has as much scientific validity as evolution. There’s no science angle (or at least no major science angle) to the Battle of Hastings. I would guess (not claiming any kind of expertise on the subject) that there are numerous contemporary documents giving that date (the approximate ages of said documents being established by various chemical tests) and they are more-or-less agree and there’s no compelling reason to doubt them (the stakes in this case are not high enough to require a rigid standard) so I’ll go with October 14th. Had I been raised in a household of devout October 15th-ers, I have no doubt I’d feel differently.

As for me personally, since no-one here really knows me I can claim what I like and no-one can contradict me.

Well, you just lost whatever tenuous shreds of credibility you might’ve had. You probably should avoid implying that you could be lying because at that point, it makes no difference if you are or aren’t.
As a final note, I’d just like to express my surprise that on a Futurama-geek-heavy board like this, no-one had taken the username “Calculon” before now.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=Calculon]
Out of interest, do you consider Paul to be a “direct follower” of Jesus?
[/quote]

No. He never met Jesus.

Both Romans and 1 Corinthians are universally regarded as being written by him, and both talk of Jesus being raised from the dead.

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.

Not only that but says he didn’t get his information from any man but only from his own visionary experiences of Jesus.

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.

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.

[Calculon]

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]
I am not positing that god exists or not, I am positing that until you provide evidence his or hers or its existence is just as likely as that of the spaghetti monster. And you don’t believe the spaghetti monster exists and neither do I.

[/QUOTE]

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=Superfluous Parentheses]

I’ll try to be reasonable here, but it’s hard given the feats attributed to God. For a god of christian proportions to exists (you know, all-knowing, all-powerful, created the universe and everything in it etc.) I will accept his existence, barring future evidence to the contrary, if he can do a couple of relatively minor miracles, like say put two of every animal in a wooden boat that can actually sail, transform a couple of liters of water into wine and speak from a burning bush (and make sense). At least a few of these feats should be reproducible or at least recorded using accepted scientific practices and instrumentation. Note that I don’t require this god to prove he created anything relevant to the state of the universe or even the earth.

[/QUOTE]

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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?

[QUOTE=Superfluous Parentheses]

Of that jesus did everything that was described in the NT? I don’t believe much of it is true, but if it is, Jesus was either an exceptional being or a very good (and cynical) illusionist He could be an outer space alien and it would make sense. Where does god come in?

[/QUOTE]

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.

Calculon.