When Atheists Tell The Truth...

[Mike Cl]

So I’m reading through this thread and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

The bible can never be proven to be accurate.  Why?  There are simply too many of them.  There is too much each of those bibles left out.  Why is Mark a better source than the Gospel of Thomas, for example?  Because it was decided politically that one was worth keeping and one was not.  The Bible is totally man-made.

Proof for me would have to be some demonstration that God exists.   I have seen none, nor experienced none.  So, if god does not exist then why should I search out what it is this invisible god wants.  If God is god then that proof should be available and easily seen by all.  But it isn't.  I like to use reasons for what I do, not because of beliefs, for beliefs do not need reasoning.

[TomFoolery]

Why is Mark a better source than the Gospel of Thomas, for example?  Because it was decided politically that one was worth keeping and one was not.  The Bible is totally man-made.

Certainly a valid point in my eyes and one I've used many times before, only to be rebuffed again by believers because the Bible was written by man but inspired by God. Obviously. One of the many pitfalls of trying to use reason to argue against faith I suppose.

[Johan]

Inspired by god: Offer your virgin daughters to be raped by the angry mod outside in order to try and keep said mob from raping the house guest you just met. That god, always a prankster that one.

[the_antithesis]

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

It is rhetorical because you have no evidence.

If you had evidence, then we wouldn't have to argue whether your god exists, we would just not want to worship the former Canaanite war god. But you don't, so there is no reason to talk to you.

[SGOS]

So I’m reading through this thread and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him. 

Not me, I'd believe in him, assuming of course the evidence held up.  I might not approve of him.  He's a bit too violent and unfair for my tastes.  Now if in fact, he was going to hurt me more than any hurt I can imagine by sending me to Hell, who knows, I might be on my knees kissing his ass, and groveling in the dirt.

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Sometimes it's kind of rhetorical, since we know that no one can offer any evidence that doesn't contain logical fallacies.  At other times, it's not rhetorical.  You got proof?  Show us.  The older I get, the more rhetorical in nature it becomes, however.  I've heard the same hallow arguments too many times.  I'm simply not expecting anything new.

[Munch]

So wait, let me get this correct, you work in law enforcement, and in such a field one would expect you to apply evidence to what you do to establish a crime or action against the law.

And yet here you are telling a story with no evidence to back it up and even strawmanning a group of people as your means of personal validation for that lack of evidence.

How interesting, would you like a warm cup of bullshit with your donut?

[Mike Cl]

Certainly a valid point in my eyes and one I've used many times before, only to be rebuffed again by believers because the Bible was written by man but inspired by God. Obviously. One of the many pitfalls of trying to use reason to argue against faith I suppose.

Reason vs faith.  For the faithful, faith always wins.  For the faithless, reason always wins.  But it is much easier to have faith, for then your work is done.  Don't have to think that way.

[Munch]

Also 63 posts but can't be bothered with an introduction page?

[GSOgymrat]

So I’m reading through this thread and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Is there evidence that would convince you God is not real, the Bible has no more significance than any other book, prayers have never been heard and there will be no day of reckoning? I think you and some atheists are equally committed to different world views and it becomes very easy to simply dismiss each other as being in denial.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Don't worry, I'll be doing my fair share of resting in just a couple of hours.  But yeah, I'm in law enforcement.  Not an officer anymore.  I work in the dispatch behind a desk these days.

Oh yeah..I remember that passage..Dispatchers get to work on the Sabbath.. Everyone else burns in H E double dirty Q-tips.. Thanks for reminding us of that one..

[Mermaid]

Is there evidence that would convince you God is not real, the Bible has no more significance than any other book, prayers have never been heard and there will be no day of reckoning? I think you and some atheists are equally committed to different world views and it becomes very easy to simply dismiss each other as being in denial.

Good point. There's plennnnnnnty of evidence that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor, yet how many Christians deny that?

[Johan]

Ho hum. Just another drive-by theist who will likely never have the balls to show his face here again.

[SGOS]

He's pretty active for a drive by.  I've read like 40,000 of his posts today.

[SkyChief]

Okay, but unless you and every other person on the planet who are aware of the choices become Christians, then the freedom still exists. If you didn't have the freedom to choose, then there would be no atheists. 

The premise of this is wrong. You made the assumption that one must make a choice to be xtian or be atheist. In fact, this is not the case.

Everyone is born atheist.

Only through years of indoctrination, years of the same lies repeated ad nauseum,  and years of coercion can a perfectly good atheist be converted to xtianity. Or any of the other wacky religions available to young, gullible minds.

Any educated, intelligent person (who was not indoctinated at an early age) could conclude that Christ never existed.  The story of Jesus is a tale which originated hundreds of years before he purportedly walked the earth. Its just re-do of tales

The fact that not one word was ever written by or about Jesus during the time when he was alive, speaks volumes about the likelihood he ever existed.

[Mike Cl]

Ho hum. Just another drive-by theist who will likely never have the balls to show his face here again.

No, he is not a drive-by.  I thought so at first, but that was dispelled quickly.  His old board died and he found this one.  If we continue to treat him with respect and share our truths with him I think he will stay around.  I find it refreshing that a theist be here.  I do not think he will change my mind about anything, but I like to find out how theists think.  And finding one who does not become outraged by my open questions is very rare indeed.  I, for one, hope he sticks around.