god told me to post this here

If we were to present the evidence for the supernatural
qualities of zeus, god, and pink unicorns, in a court of law,
and claimed that all three existed, and provided the evidence,
I would wager that the courts would reject all three as
truly existing beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is what I mean by equal. None of these myths have
sufficient evidence to support their supernatural claims.

Of the 3, god is the grandest of claims.

We have evidence for zeus in the form of ancient greek religion.
We have evidence for unicorns in story books.
We have evidence of god in religious texts.

I use the word evidence very very loosely here, because I
do not think any of these constitute evidence, or certainly not
enough evidence to accept such grand claims.


IF TODAY... in present time.... someone in a court of law
claimed that he walked on water, turned water into wine
and came back to life after being killed, I am 100% confident
these claims would be REJECTED outright based on the lack
of evidence and our knowledge of the world.


So yes.... jesus would be rejected, along with the unicorns
and zeus, thus making them EQUALLY unsupported.


peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:

Since I defined such a beast BEYOND the above, does this
mean this mythical beast actually exists???

Of course not. Its is a fiction. It is a fiction on the SAME LEVEL
as your god.

For anything beyond all of the above, is no different than
Sagans mythical, undetectable dragon, in his garage.


At BEST, all we can claim, is that the dragon only exists in
the mind of the person claiming this dragon exists.

AT BEST, all we can claim, is that your god only exists in
YOUR mind, who claims he exists.


You can define that your god is beyond anything you wish,
but as far as any rational person is concerned, there is no
difference between this god and sagans dragon. Both equally
undetectable by science and reason, and therefore equivalent
to nothing more than an empty claim.


peace

axeman
___________________________________________

If you were to present this assumed equality between God and a dragon or pink unicorn to a jury in a court of law and the recorded historical evidence from the bible was weighed beside the evidence for the dragon or pink unicorn I wonder what the outcome would be.

The recorded testimony of literally thousands of people over several centuries might weigh more heavily than the witnesses for the dragon or unicorn.

The astronomical odds against the bibles prophecies being fulfilled as foretold would also tend to lend credence to the accuracy of the witnesses testimony.

I think the case for equality would not stand.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

We have evidence for zeus in the form of ancient greek religion.
We have evidence for unicorns in story books.
We have evidence of god in religious texts.

I use the word evidence very very loosely here, because I
do not think any of these constitute evidence, or certainly not
enough evidence to accept such grand claims.


IF TODAY... in present time.... someone in a court of law
claimed that he walked on water, turned water into wine
and came back to life after being killed, I am 100% confident
these claims would be REJECTED outright based on the lack
of evidence and out knowledge of the world.
More...

You can't put god on trial.
 
Quote from axeman:

If we were to present the evidence for the supernatural
qualities of zeus, god, and pink unicorns, in a court of law,
and claimed that all three existed, and provided the evidence,
I would wager that the courts would reject all three as
truly existing beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is what I mean by equal. None of these myths have
sufficient evidence to support their supernatural claims.

Of the 3, god is the grandest of claims.

We have evidence for zeus in the form of ancient greek religion.
We have evidence for unicorns in story books.
We have evidence of god in religious texts.

I use the word evidence very very loosely here, because I
do not think any of these constitute evidence, or certainly not
enough evidence to accept such grand claims.


IF TODAY... in present time.... someone in a court of law
claimed that he walked on water, turned water into wine
and came back to life after being killed, I am 100% confident
these claims would be REJECTED outright based on the lack
of evidence and out knowledge of the world.


So yes.... jesus would be rejected, along with the unicorns
and zeus, thus making them EQUALLY unsupported.


peace

axeman
More...
____________________________________________

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 100% confidence of an outright rejection is very high. The law professors I have spoken to and essays by many other lawyers, judges and jurists would also disagree with your certainty. They say taken the number of witnesses and the consistency among those witness added to the reliability on other issues and their martyred deaths instead of renouncing what they witnessed would have to be taken too seriously to be rejected out of hand.

Read "Who Moved the Stone" by I believe Morrison.

Another case in point is the short time frame between the witnessed events and their being recorded by the witnesses. Many of the witnesses and bystanders were alive at the time of the incidents and the time of the writings. The question at that time was not if the events took place but if they were supernatural.
 
Putting god on trial would require that he first exists.
I cannot put a non-existent entity on trial obviously.


But I can put the hypothesis of god on trial.


peace

axeman




Quote from aphexcoil:



You can't put god on trial.
More...
 
This will just get us into another discussion on the authenticity
of the bible. Regardless.... if we focus on the supernatural
claims in the bible, even if we accepted that the bible
was not completely manufactured by the designers of a new
religion, it STILL would not stand up to scrutiny.

Modern magicians can perform "miracles" more magnificent
than those claimed by jesus, and if they were to claim
that these were NOT illusions, but in fact true, I seriously
doubt a court of law would accept them without
very very close examination and scrutiny by a team
of debunkers/scientists.

Only with such close examination and research would such
extraordinary claims be accepted. Obviously, this test is
not even possible with the jesus stories, and therefore I
can only be led to believe that such claims would have to be
rejected if the courts applied any consistency in their judgement,
due to their unverifiability and untestability.

People claim to see all kinds of weird things, like ufo's, ghosts, etc,
and none of these are accepted on mere eye witness accounts either.


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:


____________________________________________

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. 100% confidence of an outright rejection is very high. The law professors I have spoken to and essays by many other lawyers, judges and jurists would also disagree with your certainty. They say taken the number of witnesses and the consistency among those witness added to the reliability on other issues and their martyred deaths instead of renouncing what they witnessed would have to be taken too seriously to be rejected out of hand.

Read "Who Moved the Stone" by I believe Morrison.

Another case in point is the short time frame between the witnessed events and their being recorded by the witnesses. Many of the witnesses and bystanders were alive at the time of the incidents and the time of the writings. The question at that time was not if the events took place but if they were supernatural.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Putting god on trial would require that he first exists.
I cannot put a non-existent entity on trial obviously.


But I can put the hypothesis of god on trial.


peace

axeman
______________________________________________

In that case the allowable evidence would have to be weighed and ruled on by someone other than the initiator. Otherwise there could only be a "kangaroo" court which has been the case so far and still does not warrant merit.




More...
 
I would love to formally debate such topics with a board to judge the winner :D

I have done so in the past, and it's far easier than in a forum
like this.

This plays to my strengths because such debates occur
within the frameworks of logic and reason, and when I
shoot my opponents down by identifying their flaws, they
cannot so easily shrug me off. It COUNTS :)

I welcome such debates. It makes it so much easier for me.


If this were to happen in a court of law, and I was the attorney
arguing against the other attorneys position that god exists,
where the burden of proof is on HIM... my confidence level
could not be any higher. I would almost consider it an easy win.


peace

axeman




Quote from Doubter:
In that case the allowable evidence would have to be weighed and ruled on by someone other than the initiator. Otherwise there could only be a "kangaroo" court which has been the case so far and still does not warrant merit.

More...
 
i'm not gay, but you know a religion is ABSOLUTE SH!T when gay people are "sinners." anyone who supports that is a total dickhead with an absolute crap belief system!!!!

you religous people should be EMBARASSED for discriminating against gay people! and if you still don't understand that being gay is not a choice, only acting on it is, YOU'RE FLAT OUT FVCKED UP!!!!!

then aphexcoil and others cry because i don't respect their BS religion. IT DESERVES TO NOT BE RESPECTED AND I'M NOT GOING TO EVER. it's a DISGRACE to the human race, PERIOD.
 
The idea of original sin is an atrocity, which from an early
age, I wager, does psychological harm to children who
have to grow up thinking of themselves as a worthless piece
of crap :(

peace

axeman
 
Quote from axeman:

I would love to formally debate such topics with a board to judge the winner :D

I have done so in the past, and it's far easier than in a forum
like this.

This plays to my strengths because such debates occur
within the frameworks of logic and reason, and when I
shoot my opponents down by identifying their flaws, they
cannot so easily shrug me off. It COUNTS :)

I welcome such debates. It makes it so much easier for me.


If this were to happen in a court of law, and I was the attorney
arguing against the other attorneys position that god exists,
where the burden of proof is on HIM... my confidence level
could not be any higher. I would almost consider it an easy win.


peace

axeman
________________________________________

Now who is speculating and posturing?
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top