Jesus never existed.

[karrie]

I've never looked for a convert, I just have my position, and others have theirs,
not interested in coaxing or using any method to convert anyone.

just mocking... you do it pretty regularly if you want to be totally honest about the comparisons. If you don't, that's fine too. But there's a reason that the atheists of this forum get accused of bad behaviour just as often as the religious zealots.

 

[Cliffy]

Yes, really. You can't prove all negatives, but the general claim that you can't prove a negative is false. It's not related to the burden of proof for a proposition being on the claimant.

Prove it! :lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yes, really. You can't prove all negatives, but the general claim that you can't prove a negative is false. It's not related to the burden of proof for a proposition being on the claimant.

There's no dark side of the moon either.

You can't prove most negatives Dexter, that is why burden of proof is usually upon those who make a positive assertion, a positive statement.

And there is dark side of the moon, the far side is colloquially known as the dark side. This is what wikipedia says about it.

Dark side of the Moon may refer to:

• Far side of the Moon, the lunar hemisphere that is permanently turned away from the Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_Moon_(disambiguation)

 

[Dexter Sinister]

And there is dark side of the moon, the far side is colloquially known as the dark side.

I know, but it's not dark, it gets the same cycle of illumination the side facing us does.

Every time you prove a positive, you also prove a negative, and vice versa, it just depends on how the propositions are cast. If you prove some proposition P is true, then you've also proven that not P is false.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I know, but it's not dark, it gets the same cycle of illumination the side facing us does.

I agree Dexter, but ‘dark side’ is a common term of usage (not something I made up), though as you say, the side is definitely not dark (that is why it must be considered a colloquialism).

Every time you prove a positive, you also prove a negative, and vice versa, it just depends on how the propositions are cast. If you prove some proposition P is true, then you've also proven that not P is false.

True.

 

[talloola]

just mocking... you do it pretty regularly if you want to be totally honest about the comparisons. If you don't, that's fine too. But there's a reason that the atheists of this forum get accused of bad behaviour just as often as the religious zealots.

When people contradict each other, because they disagree, I guess that is
considered bad behavior, but I don't 'ever' try to get anyone who is a relgious
believer be an atheist, I just let them know that I don't believe like they do.
I don't care, nor do I desire to coax anyone out of their comfort zone, that is their business, I'm not a 'coaxy ' or a 'you should', do what I do or think like I
think kind of person.
There are many political chats on this forum that continually contradict each
other, that is accepted, and so should contradictions on religious beliefs
be accepted. it's no different
than differing on any other matter, and the believers have no right taking a
position that makes it seem like atheist have no business making a stand.

believers vs. non believers, just like two political parties clashing, go for it.

I parrallel dexter's thinking, and as strong an atheist as he is, I have never
read a post where he states that anyone 'should become' an atheist, even
though he has very direct opinions against the belief in god.
I agree with that position.

 

[darkbeaver]

What does exist mean? All invention exists. What is is eh. Jesus was born of a virgin quill.

 

[Cliffy]

That is what I have said before. Just because I state my opinion that the bible is a work of fiction, bible believers think I am attacking them personally. If someone states that the bible is the word of god, i will state that I don't think it is and why I believe that. A forum is about discussing ideas and beliefs. I don't think I have ever said anyone was an idiot to believe anything. Because I state that what I believe to be true with the same conviction that a christian believes Jesus is god, is not a reason to feel negated.

 

[darkbeaver]

:lol:I imagine god to be a good bit more efficient communicator than to have to resort to the written word. For instsnce why dosen't herholinessess simple telegraph the good words directly into our heads so there's no confusion about the marching orders? In the old days before writeing I imagine this was what she did. The old times must have been great eh. Some people believe capitalism is good for us, they're idiots. Some people believe the pope is a christian, they're idiots, some people believe the big bang, they're idiots, some people believe lima beans taste good, they're of course idiots.

 

[Goober]

And on a related matter, people should stop claiming that you can't prove a negative. You can.

Really, Dexter?

Prove that you have not visited Ulan Bator, Mongolia in the past ten years. You can’t.

Prove that Easter Bunny (or the Great Pumpkin) doesn’t exist. You can’t.

I say that on the dark side of the moon (the side that is perpetually hidden from us) there is a house made from gingerbread, with a pool filled with maple syrup in the backyard (all enclosed in a hermetically sealed bubble). Prove that that is not the case. You can’t

Prove that God doesn’t exist. You can’t.

A negative can be proved in only a few isolated instances. E.g. you may be able to prove that you haven’t visited Ulan Bator in the last three or four days, you probably can account for each and every minute of your time for the past three or four days. Or you can prove that two plus two does not make five. But you prove that by proving a positive. You prove that two plus two make four and hence not five.

But trying to prove a negative on its own is a very difficult, often an impossible task. And that is why science says that the proof of burden is on somebody who makes a positive statement. E.g. you could easily prove that you have been to Ulan Bator in the past ten years (assuming you have).

SJP
Sorry but Dexter is correct – you are the Great pumpkin – Prove me wrong.

 

[Goober]

You can't prove most negatives Dexter, that is why burden of proof is usually upon those who make a positive assertion, a positive statement.

And there is dark side of the moon, the far side is colloquially known as the dark side. This is what wikipedia says about it.

Dark side of the Moon may refer to:

• Far side of the Moon, the lunar hemisphere that is permanently turned away from the Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_side_of_the_Moon_(disambiguation)

SJP
I am of the opinion that this was named in your honor – to salute you as they say – prove that I am wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Cliffy]

SJP
I am of the opinion that this was named in your honor – to salute you as they say – prove that I am wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Goober,

Play nice now!

 

[Cliffy]

:lol:I imagine god to be a good bit more efficient communicator than to have to resort to the written word. For instsnce why dosen't herholinessess simple telegraph the good words directly into our heads so there's no confusion about the marching orders? In the old days before writeing I imagine this was what she did. The old times must have been great eh. Some people believe capitalism is good for us, they're idiots. Some people believe the pope is a christian, they're idiots, some people believe the big bang, they're idiots, some people believe lima beans taste good, they're of course idiots.

Beav,
Idiots is a bit strong. Misguided would be my choice, especially about Lima beans.:lol:

And, yes She did communicate to the ancients without the written word. It would just make good sense. Words are just symbols after all and open to interpretation by the receiver. But telepathy is much clearer and direct. Only a sociopath would write it down so that it can be misinterpreted by so many. She would have known it would lead to wars, mass murder and rape.

 

[YukonJack]

Why is it that it is a crime to doubt the Holocaust, but it is OK to dobt the existence of Jesus Christ?

 

[Cliffy]

Why is it that it is a crime to doubt the Holocaust, but it is OK to dobt the existence of Jesus Christ?

The holocaust was an event, Jesus Christ was a myth based on a construct of several older myths. There is no evidence that he actually existed. The death camps existed.
Now you know.

 

[YukonJack]

Denying the Holocaust (which I am NOT) may get one in hot water for a short time.
Denying the existence of Jesus Christ WILL get one in hot water (or worse) for a long, long time.

 

[talloola]

Why is it that it is a crime to doubt the Holocaust, but it is OK to dobt the existence of Jesus Christ?

There is 'proof' of the holocaust all over the place, after somelthing is proven
it seems ludicrous to still doubt it.
People can say that about anything then, and doubt something that is a proven
fact, don't know how that settles anything, just shows solid stubborness and
refusal to admit something you actually know is true, but not a crime.
I can't say that their is proof or not about jesus christ, sure maybe he was an
actual human being on this earth, but beyond that, the stories about him
become myths because they enter the super natural realhm, and are not proven
and become very unbelievable.