Surely you don't believe every single ancient myth (pardon my term) out there do you? If so, then what is your criteria for telling fact from fantasy? Does writing something down in a book automatically make it true for you?
Of course not no more than I would accept anyone to do this. And you are correct in saying that just writing something down does not make it true.
However, if the writers are saying that they saw something that happened, either they are liars or are telling the truth. In such case the myth could be fact.
True, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe something because it was written in a book a long time ago. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I am not claiming that Zeus never existed, I am rejecting the claims by others that he existed due to lack of evidence. When I say "there is no God," I don't mean that I absolutely positively know to an absolute certainty that he doesn't exist, I mean that I am as certain as I can be about anything that I see no compelling evidence for one. I cannot be absolutely certain that Santa Claus doesn't exist, nor can I be certain the Easter Bunny doesn't either. But I am certain they don't in a practical sense, as much as I can be certain about anything.
It one thing to accept the easter bunny and santa claus when people confess the story is made up. It is quite another to reject an idea when the person says they truthfully observed an event. If witness testimony is something you do not adhere to then you better never accept anything you hear in a courtroom.
My not believing in God requires no evidence. YOU are the one who is making the assertion that he does exist, therefore YOU are the one who has the burden of proof, not me. I am simply saying that I don't believe you. If I were to claim that there is an invisible gnome, undetectable by any human means living in my stomach, would you have the burden of proof to disprove it and automatically believe me because you couldn't? Or, would it be my responsibility to provide evidence if I wanted to convince others of it?
So what you just admitted to is that you go by a double standard in the fact that you simply just believe that God does not exist. Tell me exactly how is that any different than the person who says I believe in God even though I have no evidence? Why are you telling everyone this when it is just your opinon? You are enitiled to it but frankly it is rather contradictive to call Chirstains arrogant when you go by the same criteria they do and yet insist that if God answers back it is insanity. You claim Christians are arrogant or insanefor thinking God answers their prayers but then tell me you need no proof for your beliefs? After all it could be that God just did not go to you.
Where in the Bible does it support the idea that Zeus and Thor were real? You're making a leap between the Nephilim and the Greek Gods. You have no compelling evidence to support that belief, either, and you're condemning ME?
I did not say that I had compelling evidence only that I do not dismiss the idea. I said that it is logically impossible to dismiss this idea entirely.
Again, I don't need proof not to believe in something that has no proof. I simply don't accept it because I haven't seen compelling evidence? I am making no assertions, you are. You are claiming that something exists, and it is your responsibility (if you want other people to believe it) to provide proof.
Please. You mean that you don't want to BOTHER to find out.
A myth can very well mean a false story. The academic definition of a word is not the only definition. I still use the word theory when referring to an idea or a guess, but I understand that it has a different meaning in an academic setting. This forum is not an academic setting and therefore am using the colloquial meaning. You're trying to distract the topic at hand by being pedantic.
And you implied that all myth is false. As I have said not all myth is false. You can say that you feel that myth is false but you cannot say that it is false.
2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired of God and beneficial..." Again, you're being pedantic, pointlessly splitting hairs over semantics. You cannot ignore the fact that many Christians DO believe that the Bible is the word of God. The Bible says that it is inspired of God, that God cannot lie. Therefore it presents itself as the message of God.
Incorrect observation on your part. This is not pointlessly splitting hairs as inspired can have a number of meaings. You assumed that the one that you were using was correct much like most of your arguments that you used. If that is not the case then please show me where it states that God said the book was infallible? It states that he breathed on the writers to wriite about him but write what in what way?
I do not believe there is a God because there is no compelling evidence for his existence. I do not believe something simply because it cannot be disproven, otherwise I would believe everything everybody said all the time. That course is not an advantageous one.
The no complelling evidence you discribe happens to be all of creation around you. If you are too ignorant to see its complexity that is your problem not mine.
Here you are creating another straw man argument. Where did I argue that because the Bible contradicts itself that it must mean God doesn't exist? Where? You're blinded by your assumptions about atheists. Your Titanic example is flawed for a few reasons. 1) A shipwreck is something that happens all the time, and is not a miraculous claim, therefore it's easy to believe that a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912. 2) There is physical proof of the Titanic sinking. Newspapers all over the world at the time reported on it. There are eyewitnesses (up until recently living eyewitnesses I believe). There is the ACTUAL SHIP at the bottom of the Atlantic and there is VIDEO FOOTAGE of the ship before and after it sank.
Actually that tape of the ship is fake and the witnesses are all liars. It is one thing to say that a witness testmony is false it is another thing to prove it is.
There is evidence that those events happened and that is the Apostles seeing those events but you choose to ignore this. That is an assumption on your part. So I AM the one that has the burden of proof as I have the Apostles saying they saw this man resurrected. It is now up to YOU to prove that they were lying and so far you have done a very poor job doing it.
If someone told me a ship called the Titanic sank in 1912, grew fins and danced a hula all the way down to the bottom and now lives as an invisible celestial shark that we all must worship, but there were no corroborating records for it, no video footage, no eyewitnesses, no newspaper clippings, then yes I would have trouble believing it. I wouldn't believe it until that person brought me better evidence for it. The Jesus story was written by those who CLAIM to be eyewitnesses almost 2,000 years ago. No contemporary records exist at the time (and don't bring up Josephus, either. The mentions of Jesus were forgeries added by Christians hundreds of years after the fact) The authorship of Matthew at least is very debatable, considering the fact that here was a supposed eyewitness using other gospels as source material. Unfortunately for you I have put some basic study into that issue, and not just from "Atheists suck and the Bible r00lz University."
There is outside testmony for Jesus of Nazereth, by plenty of historians. Celsus for example says that Jesus existed and did the miricles. The problem is that you REJECT this testimony becuase it is not what you want to hear. The authorship of Matthew is a good example as Papias who knew the Apostles says that Matthew wrote the Gosple bearing his name. But you reject this becuase you just do not want to hear it. If I am wrong then please bring forth this evidence from the person who knew the Apostles that says that Matthew DID NOT write it.
Again, more pointless hair-splitting. Oh my God I was wrong about who authored Acts. So what? Are you saying it really did matter to me? Can you read my mind? Who's going to win next year's Super Bowl?
I love when people do this. The point is that you did not know what you were talking about. If you are going to state a fact you better be prepared to be "called on the carpet" for it. It is not hair splitting if you misquote them.
If you read the book and found proof in the book that God was behind it, good for you. I need more than that. I don't simply accept every wild claim written down in a book at face value, as you apparently have the habit of. I think that using the Bible as its own proof is circular logic. You can't use the subject in question as proof of its own conclusion.
Just as acccepting the accounts of Alexander the Great by historans is circular logic right? Again I do not accept the book because the book says that it is inspired of God rather because it was written by people who were there during the events and you wern't. Get me someone as a reference that was there during the events that said they did not happen and we'll talk. So far the only thing that you have brought me is the very circular logic that you accuse me of. After all does "My not believing in God requires no evidence." ring a bell?
Well, I'm not impressed with you, either. You've brought nothing to the table, here. Just theist arrogance.
Theistic arrogance would require having no proof and still stating that it is fact. I have proof in the writings of the Apostles. I have proof in the complexity of all creation. I have proof in the writings of Josephus, and others. I have proof. You however have fail to bring forth one shred of evidence that these men were lying other than "Well, my beliefs require no proof." Funny, but the only one who seems to have "brought nothing to the table" here is you.
Again when you actually get off of your rear and show me this evidence at the time that the Apostles were liars then we'll talk. Until then spare me your opinion.
