Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2014, 08:15 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 05:45 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 05:43 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  The bible is the claim

The Bible is both the claim and the proof. To overturn the proof you would need to find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.

So far you have failed.

You did it again. You deliberately parsed and snipped what he said, and quote mined it out of context, you deceptive liar!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:18 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
My Daffy Duck post going to be the last one on this thread. I think hbl..... or Heavy Blowfish Lips..... is wacky and needs some therapy or medication or has a personality disorder. I'm not gonna waste anymore time reading his/her shit.

I will be on other threads, just not this one. He/she is too stupid for words.




[Image: ufonotcomingback_thumb.jpg?w=549&h=486]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
09-08-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 07:53 PM)hbl Wrote:  Royal Professor of Law at Harvard, Simon Greenleaf, was considered to be the greatest expert of evidence the world had ever known. The Supreme Justice of the Supreme Court said that Greenleaf's testimony is the most basic and compelling testimony that can be accepted in any English speaking court in the world. When Greenleaf spoke, that settled the matter. He was far and away the most knowledgeable person on evidence the world had ever known. The London Times said that more light on jurisprudence had come from Greenleaf than all the jurists of Europe combined.

Greenleaf had one inviolable principle in his classrooms at Harvard, and that was, you never make up your mind about any significant matter without first considering the evidence. Greenleaf was not a Christian. When challenged by one of his students with this principle, he admitted that he had not considered the evidence. When he did, he became a Christian: believed in the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus.

After examining every thread of information he could find he said in his book, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence, that if any unbiased jury in the world considered the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, they would have to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth actually rose from the dead.

And so he became a believer that Jesus was God and was converted. He wrote, "In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind, and those who would investigate the truth of our religion..." He sees that Christianity is, in fact, the only evidential historical religion in the world, and the whole thing rests upon evidence which he finds so compelling and so overwhelming that any honest person with an open mind examining the evidence would be like himself inescapably drawn to accept it. And so he sets forth his first rule of legal evidence and for any other ancient document.

"Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

(Simon Greenleaf, The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined for the Rules of Evidence)

"It was IMPOSSIBLE that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not JESUS CHRIST ACTUALLY RISEN FROM THE DEAD, . . ."

(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29.)

http://biblocality.com/forums/list.php?c...-Greenleaf

Greenleaf determined the authenticity based largely upon the bogus "ancient document rule". He might be convinced of that, but it is a very shaky principle.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  Two ways I like to prove atheism is false:
Sigh, here we go again... Rolleyes
If you understand atheism, then you know that statement makes no sense. You obviously don't understand atheism.

(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  1) something can't come from nothing and infinite regress of nature is impossible, and
This is an unproven premise. You also assume incorrectly that it is necessary for something to come from nothing if there is no god.

(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  2) can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles in various group settings.
You can't find proof of the eyewitness testimony itself. (Hint: The Bible is not proof.)

(09-08-2014 04:51 PM)hbl Wrote:  God keeps the proof simple so even the daft can are left without excuse.
The proof is so "simple" that over 2/3's of the world's population didn't get it. Rolleyes (You're in the daft 1/3.)

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Big Bold Blue text is a sign he's almost reached critical mass in fail.

“You see… sometimes life gives you lemons. And when that happens… you need to find some spell that makes lemons explode, because lemons are terrible. I only ate them once and I can say with certainty they are the worst fruit. If life gave me lemons, I would view it as nothing short of a declaration of war."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DemonicLemon's post
09-08-2014, 08:23 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 08:08 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

It has been proven to have been changed, interpolated, had errors introduced, and the ages of the books has been determined far more precisely than you apparently are aware of.
But do go on shouting your ignorant, presuppositional bullshit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-08-2014, 08:29 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 06:57 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 06:55 PM)Chas Wrote:  Hearsay.

The Apostles are not hearsay, they are the ones who spent 3 years with Jesus. The NT is their testimony. There were no Apostles that said anything to the contrary.

No early church was formed without the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus.

Were you there? Did you witness them spending that time with Jesus?

No.

Were you there? Did you witness the resurrection?

No.

So how do you know for sure?

Well, it is written in the ancient texts.

How to you know the ancient texts are an accurate account of real-life events?

Because it says so in the ancient texts.




Do you see anything wrong with that? Anything at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBear's post
09-08-2014, 08:35 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(09-08-2014 08:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-08-2014 08:08 PM)hbl Wrote:  "This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."

It has been proven to have been changed, interpolated, had errors introduced, and the ages of the books has been determined far more precisely than you apparently are aware of.
But do go on shouting your ignorant, presuppositional bullshit.

Then again, it was posted in extra-large, colored font. So, he may have a valid point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:49 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2014, 08:50 PM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
"This ancient document, the Scripture, has come from the proper repository, that is, it is has been in the hands of the persons of the Church for 2000 years almost and it bears on its face no evident marks of forgery, and therefore the law presumes it to be genuine, and those who would presume otherwise upon them devolves the responsibility of proving it to be false. We don't have to prove it to be true. They have to prove it to be false. That's what the law says."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: