You claim that God does not exist.

No, we won't believe in that. That's called anecdotal evidence.

By the way, there seems to be a massive difference in the way we both approach the world. You use the word "believe" in nearly every sentence. You're just not getting it. That's what makes you and I different. I accept things when evidence is presented to me. You put blind faith in things with no evidence at all.

 

Yeah. It's a pity they don't do it always.

I think he will give his written witnessing and the police must check his words even if the guy doesn't know the motive, doesn't bring the body of victim or physical eveidence of the murderer. Moreover, I think that it happens most of the times!

 

This doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Ah. A succinct and simplified version of Anselm's argument, yes? Very good. I must remember that.

It's not convincing but it is true. One can't prove god's existence OR nonexistence, but it seems SOO unlikely, particularly when we consider that god's existence saves us from life's greatest drawback, which is death, that it strikes me as the very essence of wishful thinking

 

if someone said God killed someone you loved, would you believe them without proof or keep looking for the real killer?

 

What if I found the real killer, didn't believe it was him, and blamed somebody else (Christ) for his death???

Then Christ was tried in court, and executed for a crime He did not commit?

 

Whenever someone has a reason to believe in something, a personal steak in it... That's when my bull(*)(*)(*)(*) alarms begin to go off. People who want to believe in something will go through any lengths of denying reality and ignoring lack of evidence to support the thing they want to believe in.

 

if you based it on belief rather then evidence that could happen

 

Well first of all, as for the Hawaiian god Kane and the miniature unicorn living in Jeffrey Donovan's stomach, I have no contention that they exist, if you say that they do exist. If you believe that they exist, then so be it.

As for the more intelligent portion of your post.

Actually, some of the fellow Atheists on this forum have already proven that God exists by saying such things as "God is a murderer"; "God is a demented tyrant", etc.

'is' = 'be' = exists. That evidence has already been put before the members of this forum and none have been able to refute the evidence.

 

1. Atheism isn't a religion.

2. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html
http://www.livescience.com/16194-crime-eyewitnesses-mistakes.html
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

3. the atheist in your scenerio does not claim there is no evidence. There is the body and its identity, there are the bullets, there is the timeline, and there is an eyewitness account of what happened which may or may not corroborate the physical evidence collected. No police investigator worth their salt and certainly no prosecutor would go to courts solely on the stength of an eyewitness' testimony these days. There is way too much scientific proof that it is notoriously unreliable.

4. Your concluding paragraph means nothing. You didn't say if the eyewitness was able to identify the shooter. However, if in fact the shooter was the victim and the cops tracked him down, he would be able to corroborate his story with evidence. for instance he would know what happened to the gun. Chances are the gun would have the muggers prints on somewhere on the gun or ammo. the gun may have been use in other crimes. the dead guy may be known to police as a mugger. And on and on and on.

Your scenerio is simply not applicable to the idea of atheists not accepting "eyewitness" testimony that simpliy cannot be corroborated by physical evidence.

Its like the "evidence" that god answers prayers. It's pure probability, even with such ridiculous attributions as prayer for a person undergoing surgery - to the religious, god answered their prayers - to the pragmatist and atheist, the knowledge, technology and skill of the surgical team saved the patient.

Of course you can then enter into the game of "removed" as in god gave the surgeon talent (once removed) and god made somebody invent the surgical equipment (twice times removed) and the drugs and the procedures. That approach taken to its logical extreme, would be that god saved the patient by creating adam and eve.

 

That's because atheists reject witness and testimony OUTRIGHT, therefore it doesn't matter if a witness is sober or drunk.

Either way, atheists will reject the only witness to a crime, out of their fanatical religious perspective.

- - - Updated - - -

That is your OPINION, and that is NOT how the legal system and courts operate.

Juries are required to sometimes TRUST witness and testimony, as in the case presented.

Otherwise the atheists claim "the murderer does not exist!!!"

 

I think you failed to understand the purpose of my post. You can't make an outrageous claim, and then instead of backing up your own claim with evidence, attack people who criticize your claim, asking THEM for a LACK of evidence. You're not allowed to do that. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. And that's exactly the point of my post about the Hawaiian god Kane, and the Jeffrey Donovan thing. You infer that that part of my post was not intelligent, and I agree 100%. That's the point. Those are outrageously silly claims, and I refused to provide evidence. Instead, I asked you to prove that my silly claims aren't true. You see the problem? That's what it's like when you people tell us to prove the Christian god does not exist.

The second half of your post... how is that proof that God exists? Did you think before you wrote that, I mean, really?

 

true - its called faith.

 

Yes. Yes it is.

 

Yes! Whatever the correct spelling is. That just goes to show how insignificant they are in my mind. Anyway, the first name was Steven or Stephen.. (whatever the correct spelling may be).

Then you recognize the problem we Christians have in the Atheist demand for evidence of the existence of God. You say that you would not believe either of the two mentioned persons without being able to demonstrate that non existence with evidence. Why should we Christians accept anything less from the Atheists on this forum who blatantly state that there is no God or gods?
As for your comment about intellectual bankruptcy.. well, in light of another of your non-theists being confronted with a similar comment about him, I will state similarly as he did... 'it is not a lie, it is an opinion.' Now if you want to prove my opinion to be incorrect, then have at it.

I only accept empirical evidence as proof. Period.

No double standard, though I do appreciate you lying about my position. Just shows everyone else how intellectually bankrupt you are.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, juries must determine if they believe in the eyewitness testimony. However, the days of an conviction solely on the strength eyewitness testimoney are pretty much gone, its also much harder to get convictions solely on circumstantial evidence.

How many convicted murderers on death row have been exonerated lately, due to physical evidence not available at the time of their trials.

 

how do you chose which version is correct about your god? Muslim or Christian? or even Mormon? when they are all from the same base religion and all have "witnesses" that claim what they say to be true... fact is most people believe what their parents taught them, very few seek the truth on their own

do you just dismiss anyone that says different about your God then you currently believe and accept on blind faith those you agree with?

.

 

Precisely. That's why they call Faith a "Leap"

Mind, that's not to say it's anything bad. It gives great comfort to many people and who can denigrate something that does that

 

Are you suggesting that you are exercising your faith?

I understand all of that statement... however my understanding of that statement falls far short of you answering my question. All you have done is evaded the primary question directed at you. Why would I even bother listing the various versions of god that are not described by any religion? Besides, every god has been described previously.

So you are one of those bigoted people who cherry pick the type or types of evidence that can be submitted. In that case, your testimony on this forum is hereby rejected and amounts to pure BS.

"We" in the reality sense would include me... and I deny having any part of whatever "We" did.

Now that you have given it a definition, what dictionary did the definition come from?

Come back when you can provide a real meaning of the term "supernaturalness"

My point is your own ignorance in making such a statement about human predecessors lacking understanding of fundamental logic. Your own version of logic or your application of that logic has failed you fundamentally.

Where? I am looking but I don't see it. How does it manifest itself? Is it a vapor, a cloud, in the shape of a rock, chair, automobile, what?

Oh really. Pity that poor soul who created the first wheel. He/she was so ignorant of the basic knowledge of today.

Well, that is an interesting little subject you have cornered yourself into. Your premise is waiting now for you to offer evidence that would prove the premise either correct or in error. BTW: Thanks for making me the subject of a scientific study.

Don't be surprised. My many years in dealing in the Electronics industry has conditioned my mind to use the system of logic that computers use in their programming. There is a drastic difference in the system of logic used in computers and the logic used in philosophy. As for the difference between ignorance and intelligence, that is why there are dictionaries made available. You should also try one sometime and learn what to say before you open your mouth or put your pen in hand or your fingers on a keyboard.

 

Hahaha, this thread is full of such obvious flamebait from you, how have you not been banned yet?

People HAVE talked about the kind of gods they think don't exist. If you are having too much fun trolling to acknowledge what is there in black and white, well, go ahead, knock yourself out, I'll just continue to point out how full of crap your posts are.

 

What, God could jump up and down really high? Wow, yes, surely if something could jump up and down really really high, there is no way that could possibly be anything other than a supernatural creator of the entire universe. How dishonest of us not to accept the ability to jump really high as proof of divinity, amiright?

 

That is possibly the lowest standard of evidence I have ever seen. Someone uses a figure of speech, therefore GOD IS REAL NYAH NYAH NYAH? That is weak. Really, really weak.

 

By this standard, saying "all gods are figments of the imaginations of their believers" implicitly "admits" that all gods "exist" somehow. But as a matter of fact, all gods HAVE existed in those imaginations. Where ELSE could they exist?

 

if you saw Zeus shoot a lightning bolt from a spear ... would you be a believer or question the technology used?

if an Alien came to earth claiming to be a God.. some would believe it without question .. as your post shows

and actually there is some evidence that maybe that is what happened in the past, who knows

now what would you expect God to be able to do that an Alien could not do?
.

 

You speak for all Atheists? Or are you just making unfounded accusations based on what you read here?

Nope...I don't hate Santa Claus and he don't exist....I don't hate Pink Unicorns and they don't exist.

I ain't! What would you like to discuss that don't exist?Jesus, God, Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Hell we can even discuss why farts stink.

I want to know what doesn't exist.....to atheists

Why don't you tell us since you seem to know the mind of every Atheists on the planet. Simply based on your post I would say that you should stick to something a little less complicated...like your Bible, now theres a non complicated book.