Can I get a witness!
One could call atheism a breakfast cereal if one wanted to. Would that make it true, in your opinion?
Jesus and Darwin lol. The trouble again here is with the big picture, and science being thrown into religious ideology. And the assumption that we know everything now lmao. The question was based on Jesus as he was in the bible. Now. If whoever raised this debate puts the import on Jesus as being the son of God, and believes this, then they also have to take into account the role of Jesus at the apocalypse/2nd coming. At that point if the entire bible is true, Jesus wont really care 1 way or another. As he will no longer be without power, but all powerful according to the bible. But. He came and died as a man at his fathers request, so christians believe, and he asks for belief in him as the son of god, but he never asked for adulation, the only one who did was God in the 10 commandments. So tbh I dont think he cares. he is a tool, a man/god on a mission for his father, and the debate should have been, “What does God think of the adualtion for Jesus? As the Lord your god is avengeful God etc etc, and will he be a bit miffed?”
Pathetic, if I felt you deserved pity.
I wouldn’t say humans do better than God, Just that God is supposed to know all things past, present, and future, if this is so, and he punished man because of a flaw he put into human beings, then it is not the fault of humans that they are flawed and punishment is not the act of a loving being. If I was Mrs hitler(as an example) and I knew my son would turn out the way he did, I would not bear any children!
I don’t recall( at the moment), but there is a quote attributed to Jesus, when some one called him good, he answered that only the Father was good.
That would be my personal truth, right? And, no, I probably never would attach “atheism” as a meaning for breakfast cereal. (even those ones that look good, but are really bad for you)
Does this take into the fact that the Bible quotes Jesus as saying he was going to return in his father’s glory with his angels while SOME OF THEM STANDING THERE WERE STill Alive? It didn’t happen, and sort of makes Revelations moot!
Perhaps it did- just not as expected- He ascended into the Clouds into the Father’s Glory, accompanied by angels, in the presence of witnesses and within a forty-year generation, after the Jerusalem Establishment persistently persecuted His Church & the High Priest Ananus circa 62AD murdered Jesus’ near-kinsman James on the Temple grounds, Jesus presided over the Roman Siege of Jerusalem & unleashed His Kingdom on all nations.
My response to the actual OP question- He’d be absolutely fine with the adulation but commands that it be backed up with faithful following of His words.
There’s a passage in Alice in Wonderland where Humpty-Dumpty says that words mean whatever he wants them to mean, and this would be the theological equivalent: “my personal truth is whatever I say it is.” If you felt that revealed personal truth covered all claims of fact - like “The Sun revolves around the Earth and that’s my personal truth” - people wouldn’t bother getting into a discussion with you because it would see it’s pointless.
What we were discussing is claims of fact, not revealed personal truths. Belief in God is a personal truth, “Lady Gaga’s fans hate Christianity” is not. It’s a statement about what someone else is doing and it’s more than reasonable to expect it to be supported with facts (Theophane continues to duck this) and the same goes for some other claims that have been made here.
Atheism and theism are both positions on whether or not gods exist. That’s what they have in common. I don’t think you can really call either one of them a belief system because they’re individual positions, and system implies a series of related views. The tactic of calling atheism a faith gets very tiresome because it’s a false equivalence and because it’s often brought up as a distraction from some other topic.
It is not logical to believe in God or Jesus. I should have made that clear. And yet I believe … not because I am logical. Love for my family doesn’t come from logic, either.
I just said that the null hypothesis needs to be falsified, not proven. And to refute (?) that, you post something showing that… the null hypothesis needs to be falsified, not proven. And a wikicite none the less. :rolleyes:
I was 100% correct. The reason that an atheist’s assertion is not equal to a theist’s assertion is that “phenomena/entity/claim A does not exist” is the null hypothesis. One does not need evidence in order to support it, one needs evidence in order to falsify it. Barring that, the null hypothesis stands unfalsified. That doesn’t make it proven, but it makes it the default assumption. You would not be using your special pleading if a subject other than religion was at issue, I’d wager. If the subject was a new pharmaceutical drug and all clinical trials showed its efficacy was equivalent to a sugar pill, you wouldn’t be claiming that the “anti-druggers” are in the same boat as those who claimed it’s a cure for cancer.
Without the null hypothesis being falsified, it remains the default.
Magnificent. 
In his own mind, an atheist is never defeated. Not by logic, not by anything. “Null hypothesis” is the magic phrase.
The same can be said for theists. By definition, if they were defeated, they would not hold that position any more would they?
That was kind of a pointless comment, wasnt it?
Null hypothesis.
I hope you realize how ridiculous you seem right now. If you are trying to make an obtuse point you are very far off the mark.
Theophane, can I ask what you are trying to accomplish here?
Do you understand what a null hypothesis is? It’s not an end-all, be-all argument. It’s the default position to take when trying to prove something positively true.
Example:
H0: The test drug (Drug A) will be no better than the control (Sugar pill) at curing cancer
H1: The test drug will be statistically better than the control at curing cancer.
It’s not necessary to prove a sugar pill won’t cure cancer. It’s the default assumption. This assumption CAN be falsified, but you don’t set out to prove it, either.
And, in general, the null hypothesis is that there is nothing there (no connection or existence). So, if you approach the question of the existence of any sort of deity, the default position you generally take is non-existence (which can be falsified), with an alternate hypothesis of existence (which must then be proven).
I’m not here to convert anyone, if that’s what you mean. I’m not very popular among the other posters, especially in this thread, but that’s okay as long as nothing gets too adversarial. Go ahead and ban me if that’s what you want.