5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would respond, "Show me your evidence and I'll look at it." But you have to present evidence, no the Bible. Circular reasoning dies at the starting gate in this matter. (And you must know by now that I've been following the "Proof for Historical Jesus" argument for years, since Purdue actually, and the "evidence" I've seen so far fails. So, you got anything new?)

But, as a professed historian in this area, you must have already examined the evidence?

So could I ask you again, having looked at the evidence, do you accept or reject the existence of a Jesus who spawned a new religion?

I have found some evidence that a Jesus existed, but not enough to go any further. You skipping steps again. You want me to assume that Jesus existed and then say what he did. I haven't seen anything like that.

[Theophilus]

I have found some evidence that a Jesus existed

Good, so what original sources were they? What non-biblical evidence do you have for Jesus? And how did you validate that evidence? I'm just trying to understand your method and your sources and which sources you decide may influence your historical view.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have found some evidence that a Jesus existed

Good, so what original sources were they? And how did you validate them? I'm just trying to understand your method.

Theo, they are mostly rumors or vague references. And they're all suspect, so they don't count as "evidence", merely indicators. I lost most of my records in 2007 so I don't have them at hand right now.

[FBM]

Uhm. The Bible can't be used as its own evidence.

Well, I simply used the manuscripts in the Bible as evidence for a person called Jesus who did miraculous, so I think you may be getting a little ahead of where we are at just at the moment.

OK, I'll slow down for you.

The scriptures are evidence, just as other historical writings are used as evidence.

Historical documents are used as evidence for or against other propositions, not as evidence for their own truth value.

Perhaps to avoid us heading off down a path that is best followed in debate with someone else I should say I am not a sola scriptura Christian; the idea that scripture is the sole authority for Christian faith and doctrine is one I do not follow myself. I am a more old-fashioned creedal and scriptural Christian.

So...you're saying that you accept both creed and scripture as evidence. Do you have any evidence that either of them is true? I don't see where the addition of creed helps anything at all. You still don't have anything but tradition, bogus authority and written versions of oral myths. Again, I really don't mean to sound harsh, but nothing = nothing.

As for other evidence, Well, you could investigate other 1st and 2nd century writings, but I suspect you would not be convinced by anything in writing that has any connection to the Christian community.

Why should I be? It's just more stuff written by people willfully deluded by the myths. It's useless wrt the question of whether or not a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, yet somehow undetectable creator-deity exists. It's just more stories. I could write a better one, one that's a lot more consistent, I might add.

So we each look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

What "evidence" is that. You haven't presented any yet.

And therein lies a fascinating, and rather mysterious, difference between the theist and the atheist.

Fascinating, yes, but not for the reasons you seem to propose. Mysterious? Not really. It's not hard to see why so many people prefer a comforting myth over the uncomfortable, yet observable, fact that we're alone on this insignificant rock in an inconceivably vast universe: people are weak and scared and they want a powerful father-figure to protect them.

As the 9th century Irish theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena wrote "Every visible or invisible creature is a theophany or appearance of God", or to use the words of the 20th century Orthodox theologian Father Alexander Schmemann "The Christian is the one who, wherever he looks, sees God everywhere and rejoices in him".

Flowery, empty rhetoric. If you want bad enough to see UFOs or Bigfoot or the Virgin Mary in a ham sandwich, you eventually will. The mind. It's a terrible thing.

At the end of the day we interpret the evidence based on our presuppositions,...

On the rare occasion when we get some, maybe. (I'm still waiting to get some from you.) In recognition of the human fallibility towards bias, real investigators share their findings with peers in journals and the like in an effort to remove distortions created by said presuppositions. If you'd like to participate in this activity, please start by producing some of this evidence that you keep promising.

...and our presupposition is dependent on whether we have faith or not (there really is no solid neutral ground to explore things from). That of course beggars the question "why do some have faith and others not?", and we can ponder on that one for a very long time.

We could, but that would be a waste of time, since we already have a very strong explanation: some people are too cowardly and weak-willed to face a universe without a protective father-figure who will protect them from eventual annihilation, things that go 'bump' in the night, etc, and thus make up comforting myths that help them sleep at night. Fine, if you want to participate in the comforting fantasy, go ahead, but don't be perplexed when less cowardly people prefer to face reality without a delusional security blanket. Ever wonder why evangelism is so strong in theist dogma? It's because the delusion doesn't work if you're alone. If you were the only person to believe in an invisible, all-powerful, magical, supernatural entity that loves you unconditionally, but will send you to eternal torture if you fucked up just a little in some little hair-splitting article of doctrine, you would find yourself in a wrap-around dinner jacket in a hotel with padded walls, munching on thorazine between ECT treatments.

[Theophilus]

I have found some evidence that a Jesus existed

Good, so what original sources were they? And how did you validate them? I'm just trying to understand your method.

Theo, they are mostly rumors or vague references. And they're all suspect, so they don't count as "evidence", merely indicators. I lost most of my records in 2007 so I don't have them at hand right now.

So, as a historian, you allow for "mostly rumors or vague references" to open up the possibility of someone being real (it is "some evidence" in your own words), but you reject the long historical trail of the Gospels as having any evidential value? Well, I shall leave it there as I just can't understand your method.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have found some evidence that a Jesus existed

Good, so what original sources were they? And how did you validate them? I'm just trying to understand your method.

Theo, they are mostly rumors or vague references. And they're all suspect, so they don't count as "evidence", merely indicators. I lost most of my records in 2007 so I don't have them at hand right now.

So, as a historian, you allow for mostly rumors or vague references to open up the possibility of someone being real, but reject the long historical trail of the Gospels? Well, I shall leave it there.

No, I don't allow such. Without evidence, they remain rumors or vague references. Assumptions are not evidence. Neither is wishful thinking. This is where theology fails to support itself.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One further point. After 2,000 years of trying, Christian "scholars" haven't come up with evidence for Jesus that satisfies the minimum standards of historical veracity. You know what that means, don't you?

[Tigger]

This goes here too:

[Feck]

One further point. After 2,000 years of trying, Christian "scholars" haven't come up with evidence for Jesus that satisfies the minimum standards of historical veracity. You know what that means, don't you?

Yes it means that if we accept the historical truth of the bible,and apply it to the rest of the world then I need more garlic to keep me safe from Vlad !

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One further point. After 2,000 years of trying, Christian "scholars" haven't come up with evidence for Jesus that satisfies the minimum standards of historical veracity. You know what that means, don't you?

Yes it means that if we accept the historical truth of the bible,and apply it to the rest of the world then I need more garlic to keep me safe from Vlad !

All sorts of supernatural beings would be running around. Demons, angels, just the start. The physical laws of the universe would be flouted on a daily basis as someone prays for a miracle and it happens. The ultimate chaotic situation results when two equals pious and deserving people pray for opposite outcomes of some event. And would undoubtedly happen at least daily, if not ever few seconds or less.

Theists should be happy their delusion is not real, or we'd be hiding from Mammon and the other monsters instead of going to work.

[Theophilus]

Historical documents are used as evidence for or against other propositions, not as evidence for their own truth value.

So you would reject Roman documents that record Roman history?

Could I suggest the filter you (and Gawdzilla) are using is actually whether the historical documents refer to natural or supernatural events?

[FBM]

Historical documents are used as evidence for or against other propositions, not as evidence for their own truth value.

So you would reject Roman documents that record Roman history?

Could I suggest the filter you are using is actually whether the historical documents refer to natural or supernatural events?

Where's Roam? (Edit: You caught your typo before I hit 'submit'. )

You could suggest whatever you like, but it would be irrelevant to the question of whether or not you have any actual evidence for the existence of a magical sky-being.

Roman documents are used as evidence to support/refute theories about events in Roman history, not the veracity of the documents themselves. Would you accept the existence of Roman gods based on those documents? Try again.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Historical documents are used as evidence for or against other propositions, not as evidence for their own truth value.

So you would reject Roman documents that record Roman history?

Could I suggest the filter you (and Gawdzilla) are using is actually whether the historical documents refer to natural or supernatural events?

Theo, I am a historian. I am a specialist in US-Japanese diplomatic relations prior to WWII. If/when I get a document I check it to see if there are any problems with it, either source, intent, or means. IF it passes the SIM test I ask if it has information that isn't available elsewhere. Then I look to see if that information is significant to any issue that has been unresolved and that information would be of benefit to the resolution of the issue. I provide several other people copies of the document and ask their opinions. Then we either reach a consensus on the document or fight like bastards about it. Either way, we take nothing on "faith", we'd be crucified if we did.

[Tigger]

@Theophilus: it might be good if you address some of the points people have raised by way of argument to your stance, rather than ignoring their valid criticisms and continuing on your (predictable, I'm sorry to say) religious track.

@Theophilus again: As I said. You are sticking to the arguments that you think you can win - you can't actually, for you are presenting nothing new in terms of evidence, and your argument from the point of history is being blown out of the water as I write. Why not address the miracles of yore and why there are none now? Bearing in mind that, inter alia, a single life "miraculously" spared after a catastrophe is NOT a miracle but a bit of bloody good luck.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know, if we built an engine and left out the pistons, it wouldn't work very well. The fatal flaw stops it from being something viable. The fatal flaws in religion get ignored by believers.