about god non exist

[syo]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

 

[idav]

Probably assuming Jesus existed and that the Resurrection happened. That level of literalism would have you conclude that a person reborn in Christ cannot die.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth.

That's a claim and a religious belief. Biblical scripture is not evidence of anything except that the words it contains were written down. Every word in the Bible that is known to be true was confirmed by some other source. Skepticism is the idea that nothing should be believed on that basis alone, especially since the authors were anonymous and we know little or nothing about their character or motives.

isn't that enough of evidence?

It is not evidence of a god on earth.

 

[LuisDantas]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

None of that has been at all well documented, you know.

 

[Polymath257]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

Well, those are the stories that have been passed down. But there have always been a *lot* of different stories that have been passed down. I give the ones concerning the perfection of Jesus and the resurrection about as much credence as I give the stories of Athena, Zeus, and Dionysus. They also were said to walk the Earth and perform miracles, with about as much believability.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Actually, I believe that atheists would immediately accept God, once they saw the evidence. Their minds are not cluttered with religious baggage, and so acceptance is straightforward.
Unfortunately, the things you mention are not evidence.

 

[PureX]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

The story of Jesus is a story. And the story's correspondence with actual people and events is unknown. So the story, to us, now, is only true in that the revelation it presents to mankind is true, and the promise that revelation makes to us does manifest when we embody the revealed truth that the story conveys.

The proof of truth is not in the 'actuality of the Jesus story'. It's in the viability of his message, and his promise to us all: that God's Divine Spirit acting in us and through us to each other, will heal us and save us from ourselves, if we will embody it. And it will help us to heal and save each other, and the world, in turn.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

If jesus performed miracles and if he is god, there should be a line of miracles today outside of the human experience. We should be able to say "oh, that's a miracle" and still believe in Siva, The Dharma, Muhammad, or so have you.

That, and personally, evidence is not external it's internal. In person, many atheists do not care.

Jesus existence isn't proof that god exist any more than Muhammad's existence and Moses. It's an individual experience and by asking and saying god exist because of X; god does not because of Y is just silly.

If you want to explain god's existence, share your experience. We can't go back 2,000 years; so, like any other event, it's written, it's said, but we take things for granted of it's actual existence.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, the majority would think maybe the sound existed because they assume if it happens here it can happen there. Logically, because we are not there, we cannot say one hundred percent. It's up to the person to go off the majority though the majority doesn't prove validity; it's an assumption based on faith/trust our knowledge applies to other things we can't cross reference beyond one's testimony.

It's if you have A B C D, we automatically put E because that is what we are taught. The letters doesn't mean anything without us. They are just markings on paper and screen. Dots and 0s and 1s. We make sense of these letters for communication.

Same as scripture. It's not historical and we can't go back 2,000 years but we automatically associate the past with the present because we are taught or influenced (those in god-countries) that because of X it must be associate with Y. If there is a computer it didn't pop from thin air; it must have a creator.

It's an assumption. Jesus most likely existed just as Muhammad and Bahaullah. As for proof of miracles and god, just like today, how does "2000" makes miracles exist then but not today.

 

[David T]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

What atheists don't believe is your childish nonsense. In defense of atheism they haven't replaced your childish nonsense at all. When they do, which they will someday atheism will cease to exist and they will look back realizing atheism is absurd muddling.

Jesus does not "believe in god" so what ever you are is not jesus. Jesus does not" not believe in God" therefore jesus is not an atheist, jesus is not "agnostic" about this at all. So what ever jesus is, currently that, does not exist in this cultures collective understanding . It's a something undiscovered at this present time. You muddle it as a "believer" atheists only see the muddle and that is it. I would say muddling is a problem not the solution. Presenting muddling as a solution is fixing what? muddling.

 

[David T]

Probably assuming Jesus existed and that the Resurrection happened. That level of literalism would have you conclude that a person reborn in Christ cannot die.

Well we see the Monty python skit but not being the Monty python skit about the Monty python skit is actual literal hard work that apparently lots of lazy bums don't want to do!!! No pain, no gain baby. Naw we just wanna be the skit mocking the skit.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Actually, I believe that atheists would immediately accept God, once they saw the evidence. Their minds are not cluttered with religious baggage, and so acceptance is straightforward.
Unfortunately, the things you mention are not evidence.

Well, of course it's evidence...

it's just really, really poor evidence...the kind of evidence that you would be very unlikely to win even a civil case in an American court, which only requires a 'preponderance' of the evidence, 'more likely than not,' like 51-49 percent.

It is evidence offered that cannot be cross-examined, can not be verified by independent witnesses or sources, and much of it is literally 'incredible,' that is, not within the daily experience of people living today, and therefore difficult to believe except through individual faith. There is also little agreement among specialists in the field on what the texts say and mean.

Not no evidence, just really, really poor evidence for skeptical observers...

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Well, of course it's evidence...

it's just really, really poor evidence...the kind of evidence that you would be very unlikely to win even a civil case in an American court, which only requires a 'preponderance' of the evidence, 'more likely than not,' like 51-49 percent.

It is evidence offered that cannot be cross-examined, can not be verified by independent witnesses or sources, and much of it is literally 'incredible,' that is, not within the daily experience of people living today, and therefore difficult to believe except through individual faith. There is also little agreement among specialists in the field on what the texts say and mean.

Not no evidence, just really, really poor evidence for skeptical observers...

Quite true, I stand corrected.

 

[Skwim]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

I think atheists will tell you that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

.

 

[idav]

Well we see the Monty python skit but not being the Monty python skit about the Monty python skit is actual literal hard work that apparently lots of lazy bums don't want to do!!! No pain, no gain baby. Naw we just wanna be the skit mocking the skit.

Is that a rebuttal or an agreement?

 

[Twilight Hue]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

I could never figure that part out. That is how people can read a book, and suddenly for some reason it's all actually true just because the book is either old or very popular or what not.

Personally I think 2000 years ago there were no God's talking any more or no less than there happens to be today which pretty much relies on a person's personal standards for believability.

 

[Willamena]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

What is the proof of Jesus?

 

[David T]

Is that a rebuttal or an agreement?

Depends on you!!! Lol.

Then you can rebuttle " what the hell old man I ain't wearing no depends. The depends are on you." then I might reply " I don't wear no depends I have a catheter I discarded my depends years ago."

you know idav sometimes I have been guilty of engaging!!!!!! Ha. So I will Toss out the depends and say yes!!!! Lol.

 

[ChristineM]

atheists say they don't believe in god because he isn't observable. but 2000 years ago god was very observable, he came as jesus. jesus was god on earth. isn't that enough of evidence? jesus didn't even have a flaw. and what about the miracles he performed? and his empty grave? isn't jesus the proof of god?

Nope, atheists have no believe in gods because there is no evidence that a god has ever existed, observation is just one of the missing evidences. In fact, given proof by exhaustion, the abrahamic god is the most disproven god in human history.

There is not actually any hard evidence that jesus existed as depicted in the bible. As to son of god, I've seen what is claimed in Jewish lore to be the grave of his father. Do gods have graves?

Please provide evidence of claimed miracles... Note, because the bible says so is not evidence.

And evidence of his resurrection from the dead, there are other stories which are a actually more believable, don't require god magic and fit with the bible description and historical aspects.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

" I don't wear no depends I have a catheter I discarded my depends years ago."

So I'm guessing that you identify more with Pissin' Impossible than In Depends Day.

 

[David T]

So I'm guessing that you identify more with Pissin' Impossible than In Depends Day.

Depends.!!!

Then again it could be yes and it depends!!!