Thoughts On Theist "Proving," God Actually Exist

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jeff Vella Leone's picture
lol dont quote just the word,

lol dont quote just the word, that is a fallacy

"Logic proves that if you are reading this correctly, then you can read English."

Use the sentence
The claim is : "then you can read English"

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
well i could have used

well i could have used Understanding instead of reading, but this is semantics, but you know what I meant.

CyberLN's picture
You could have used the word

You could have used the word understanding.

" lol dont quote just the word, that is a fallacy

"Logic proves that if you are reading this correctly, then you can read English."

Use the sentence
The claim is : "then you can read English"

Ah hahahaha....I could have used the whole phrase but, gee, Jeff, "you know what I meant."

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
point is:

point is:

"Logic proves that if you are UNDERSTANDING this correctly, then you can read English." = logic can prove things

So we can stop playing games.

CyberLN's picture
You may be gaming, Jeff. I

You may be gaming, Jeff. I am not. I'm serious as fuck. You pin all sorts of people down with an insistence that they be precise. You nail them for not being so. Then you have the audacity to provide yourself with a different standard.

If history repeats itself, you will have some snappy retort to this as well. Gopher it. Nothing will erase that you showed your skivvies.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
It wasn't me that claimed

It wasn't me that claimed unsupported claims or making random accusations.
I was not gaming, you were the instance you realized I was right, thus you tried to attack on semantics of my perfection.
As if I am perfect or ever claimed that I was.
I do mistakes, like every body else but at least I am honest about it.
The problem with most people is that they don't accept their mistakes.

I expect honesty above all, and I was clear that my mistake in making the wrong wording(English is not my native language) does not change the fact that my argument was correct.

Yea envy makes people do wicked things, I always expect "snappy retort" from everyone.

Think negative so the good is never short. :P

Jeff Vella Leone's picture

An other unsupported claim:

"You pin all sorts of people down with an insistence that they be precise."

Where did I do this?

quote please?

As far as i know I was talking to a guy when zap jumped in to show how wrong I was with a bad argument that Logic cannot, prove something.
Then when he saw that he was wrong/didn't care, You jumped in for the rescue.
When you realized that my argument was right, that indeed logic can prove things, I am being attacked on every little detail.

I see nowhere where I pinned down someone with an insistence, I was just accused unjustly and defended my position with insistence.

I keep my standard fine, if I am wrong or could have word it better I admit my mistakes as I actually did.

Btw ' Reading it correctly' can also mean 'understanding it' from where I am from.
It doesn't have to mean read it in English for sure, you can read it correctly with a translator too.

So my mistake was insignificant, surly not enough to justify your claim about me using a different standard for myself.

Zaphod's picture
He won't admit it this is why

He won't admit it this is why I have been avoiding discussion with him. He refuses to separate from his interpretations of the definitions of terms much like many theist do, he also does this with assumption based off certain things and his interpretations of them. This is strange because this is something i have grown to expect from while still extending the benefit of doubt to theist , but he says he is an atheist and I actually believe him in that regard..

So I'll let you decide Cyber, should I try to logically lead him through the 1+1=2 thing or do think as I do it will just be a waste of my time.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
zap, one thing I don't do, is

zap, one thing I don't do, is that I don't lead my bias against a person or religion, infer with my judgment of an argument.
Which it seems you do constantly.

Stop making claims about me without justifying them.
You are being very disrespectful and sound like what you so much grown to expect from theists.

Your opinion is not respected if you keep making unsupported claims like this.
"He won't admit it this" admit what, that Logic cannot prove things?
Yes Logic proves that you can read English if you understand this topic correctly.

I won't admit that I am wrong just to appear nice to you guys.
I hate hypocrites like all Christians and I won't be like one.
You should be ashamed of yourself, for trying to make me back down from my argument with the accusation that I act like a theist.
If theist's acts like me, trust there wont be any theists left.

Support your claim please and I will forget your unsupported accusations as if nothing happened.
Since I don't keep grudges against people that face me from the front rather then back-stab me.
Those are the most I never forgive.

CyberLN's picture
Well, Z, there is the

Well, Z, there is the entertainment value to be considered in seeing how he responds to it. However, that could be outweighed by the potential for some sort of self-righteous response which might provide only irritation. Or, we could just go grab a beer and talk of the meaning of life. ;-)

beneames's picture
I'm starting to like you guys

I'm starting to like you guys, cyber and zaphod :) I probably would have backed out of that "he said/she said" one sooner though. By the way, is it the one and only Beeblebrox we're talking to? If so I'm honoured.

CyberLN's picture
Interesting, I've never

Interesting, I've never thought to ask...Z, are you of Betelgeusian decent?

Zaphod's picture
Guys, shhhhh! I don't my

Guys, shhhhh! I don't my cover getting blown, not sure all the Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters time travel and interstellar travel along with the surgery I had done on my other brain to keep me from knowing my actual plans and prevent me from ruining them have honestly have me a bit confused. So in short, maybe. If you'll excuse me now I have a party to attend and I'm still hung over from last night..

CyberLN's picture
You are so cool, Z, that we

You are so cool, Z, that we could keep a side of meat in you for a month and so hip that you can't see over your own pelvis. Therefore, I will, going forward, refrain from any action that might risk your cover ;-)

Lmale's picture
Im certain its not the

Im certain its not the christian god.

Lmale's picture
To clarify christianity

To clarify christianity started purely as a means to control people half the religion is stolen from the jews the other half cant agree on even simple things. Got so much crap wrong that it couldnt possibly be 'inspired by god' and has alot of evidence of tampering things written later than claimed and not by the person it claimed.
And ofcourse the whole religion is illogical.
So yes i claim christianity is nothing more than a brainwashing child molesting cult but do not claim a creator couldnt exist i have no evidence for that yet.

beneames's picture
Christianity got sidetracked

Christianity got sidetracked around the time of Constantine, but it started with a guy walking around telling people that violence wasn't the way to solve things, helping them to imagine a different kind of world where people cared for each other - even their enemies. And in the end he was so committed to it that he died instead of inciting another violent revolution. The books in the New Testament are from the first century and the ones that were left out were either too far removed or written by people who weren't there.

Ellie Harris's picture
I can know to a certainty

I can not say I know to a certainty that there isn't a sky daddy, but since it so ridiculously improbable that any form of theism is the truth of this reality and humanities place in it, I lack belief in their claims.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Beneames, I'm still waiting

Beneames, I'm still waiting for your answer? YES or NO?

"Christianity got sidetracked around the time of Constantine,"
True, but not in the way You think. Constantine only revived Christianity to power again after previous emperors removed the Christians from power and persecuted them. It is what always happens when a change of dynasty occurs in roman politics.

"but it started with a guy walking around"
False, you have no evidence to support this claim, yet I have evidence that Jesus of the gospel is not a historical character, but a fictional character, a messiah to the roman liking.

"telling people that violence wasn't the way to solve things, helping them to imagine a different kind of world where people cared for each other - even their enemies.
True, the Jesus character has that message, because the Romans wanted their slave to obey and give the other cheek, not to revolt and especially not to listen to the JEWS that were currently at war with Rome for over 50 years.

" And in the end he was so committed to it that he died instead of inciting another violent revolution."
He died because the Romans wanted to show how unreliable the JEWS are, they crucified their own Messiah, so the JEWS will suffer antisemitism throughout history, as they indeed did.
'The books in the New Testament are from the first century and the ones that were left out were either too far removed or written by people who weren't there."
True, but I won't exclude that they were refined much later. It is a story, none of them were there since Judea was a war zone, just like LIBYA is today, there is no place for Jesus to go and preach and gather people, there is no place for a quite fishing day and walking on water.
The Romans were busy trying to control several messianic movements(messiahs) that were rising to declare war with Rome from every city. There was killing, rape, famine, attacks on innocent people all over the place. Roman raids on hoses to find these rebels, etc...
The war started around 30 AD where Jesus supposedly appeared and ended around 130 AD where the Jews were finally subdued by the Romans.
100 year war that nearly destroyed the roman empire financially.
Get some political context of the era before claiming anything about Jesus :

beneames's picture
Is that where you're getting

Is that where you're getting your info from? I watched the movie and it's pretty dodgy. The theory all comes from a guy, Joseph Atwell, who claimed that there are amazing parallels between the stories of Jesus in the New Testament and the military campaign of Flavius in Josephus' "Wars of the Jews." And that's it.
He does some pretty fancy footwork to make the theory plausible. "Jesus" in the NT stands apparently for Tiberius and also a hypothetical zealot leader named Eleazer. "Mary" means basically any female who backs the Jews. Simon Peter is different to Peter. And it goes on.
There are many scholars who've done much better work on the culture and history of first century Palestine than this guy.

CyberLN's picture
Joseph Atwill is actually a

Joseph Atwill is actually a computer scientist, not a credentialed biblical scholar.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Does that mean that his

Does that mean that his argument is less valid?

CyberLN's picture
Not at all. It could mean,

Not at all. It could mean, however, that he may not be the best authority on the subject and that corroboration might be in order.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
If you watched the vidoe I

If you watched the vidoe I linked you should see that he has some "corroboration"

beneames's picture
Yes it absolutely makes his

Yes it absolutely makes his argument less valid. If you want to propose a theory about gravity you have to be a physicist. If you want to propose a credible theory about 1st century Palestine, you have to be an expert on 1st century Palestine.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Well your opinion has to be

Well your opinion has to be respected.

Though you should have mentioned that Atwell provides evidence(real evidence for a change) that links the Flavian dynasty to the early christian church fathers.

Did you miss the part where the first christian Pope(real historical figure) was a flavian?
Did you miss the part where the very first Saint was a flavian?
That there are 2 very early churches in Rome dedicated to 2 flavians(now saints)?
That Jesus prophecies are fulfilled by Titus flavius(the emperor) in the same exact way and in the exact time as Jesus predicted.
Did you miss the part that the early church symbols(the fish, the anchor) were the symbols that the flavians used on their coins.
Did you miss the part that Constantine FLAVIUS wanted to be a flavian and went as far as having His own arch near the Colosseum just like Titus Flavius(the second coming of jesus, the son of man).
Did you miss the part where the only historian of the era FLAVIUS Josephus declares that FLAVIUS Vespasian (the emperor) was the messiah.
The Trinity is nothing else then the Father (vespasian) The son (titus) and his brother(Domitian)

These are compelling evidence that you cannot just put under the carpet because they don't jibe you.
The truth is shouting in your face.
It is up to you to investigate these by yourself and not because I or Joseph Atwell is saying so.

beneames's picture
Here's a pretty scathing

Here's a pretty scathing review of Atwoll's work by a non-Christian 1st century historian. He writes it better than me. If you're serious about this theory you should also seriously consider the rebuttals.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
I have read the "pretty

I have read the "pretty scathing review" and i have to say that he cannot find much to say against Atwell.
He is just creating doubt on what he can whilst ignoring the evidence presented by Atwell just like you did.
I myself can easily debunk his arguments 1 by 1 and I am no historian.

First contradiction in Number 1 of his main reasons lol. First sentence and he cannot get it right for cry out loud.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls were not all written in the first century, but spread out over many. There are more than 200 years of texts here, from the terminus a quo of the earliest manuscript to the terminus ad quem of the latest (3rd Century CE – 1st Century CE).."

contradicts this next sentence:

"So no, Atwill, you’re not going to find a match to the Gospels because these were written after the Dead Sea Scrolls had been hidden away in the caves of Qumran. In fact the site was probably destroyed by Romans during the First Jewish War–prior to when it is generally believed Mark wrote the first Gospel around 70 CE."

So were they written before 70 ad OR "were not all written in the first century""(3rd Century CE – 1st Century CE)"?

"The Gospels follow a pattern of what is called ‘Biblical Rewriting’ which was a common Jewish practice, just as ‘Homeric rewriting’ was common with Greek and Roman writers. So actually the Gospels fit quite well within the scribal framework of the Jewish community at the time"

Yea accept that they are written in Greek and he is simply agreeing with Atwell about the style, that Jewish helped in the production of this literature since they have a very similar style.

This guy has really nothing to say.

This guy is so stupid that he does not deserve my attention to debunk him.

If you think he has any valid points at all, point them out else I would not waste my time with him.

beneames's picture
Ok, call that article a

Ok, call that article a teaser then. Here's another one by another expert - Richard Carrier. At the bottom of the article he's also posted a very long conversation he had with Joe Atwill himself. I only post this because you seem pretty set on the idea, and it really is quite illogical. It's doubtful even whether Atwill understands Greek. Some of the language parallels he makes only work when you read the texts in English.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
K it is becoming annoying

K it is becoming annoying when people give sites for other to spend hours to read without pointing them where it is relevant to the argument.

First of all this guy clearly does not agree with Atwill, he starts the argument with "Atwill Who?"
We call that a Genetic Fallacy
He attacks mostly the person and not the argument.

I listed several pieces of evidence which neither you or Richard Carrier dared to mention in their "UNBIASED" criticism.(I'm being Ironic)

He is a christian so I don't blame him for being biased about it. However being so dishonest about the evidence presented by Atwill is unacceptable.

If you cared watching the video I linked you.
Atwill answers most of what Richard Carrier claims here.

1)"The Roman aristocracy was nowhere near as clever as Atwill’s theory requires. They certainly were not so masterfully educated in the Jewish scriptures and theology that they could compose hundreds of pages of elegant passages based on it. And it is very unlikely they would ever conceive of a scheme like this, much less think they could succeed at it (even less, actually do so)."

For a historian to say this is unbelievable.
The Flavians had many JEWS in their own army and in their own elites.
Starting with Joshephus the historian himself that was adopted in the family.
Then you had the right hand man of Titus Flavius, Julius Alexander. The second in command of the Flavians main army.
He himself slaughtered the Jewish rebellion in Alexandria. He was of Jewish origin.

Both the Alexanders and the Herods had Jewish origin and they were experts in Jewish theology. Those where the friends and family of the Flavians(a lot of marriages between them)

2)"We know there were over forty Gospels, yet the four chosen for the canon were not selected until well into the 2nd century, and not by anyone in the Roman aristocracy. Likewise which Epistles were selected."
(3) The Gospels and the Epistles all contradict each other far too much to have been composed with a systematic aim in mind.

The Gospels intention was not what this guy thinks.
They started originally to legalize their dynasty(Flavian) as divine since their family name was unpopular(the JULIA family was divine) and they feared that they will be assassinated by other roman families that wanted the throne but feared the flavian army.(they feared they would end up like Julius Caesar, back-stabbed). After all they did steal the Thrown by brute force.(once the army is dissolved they would be killed)

Then most likely they extended it to show how untrustworthy the Christians are(the zealots jews were called Christians at the time since they follow a messiah)(messiah= cristos in Greek)

Then later it must have spread throughout the empire and everyone of the provinces had their own version of it.
That is why they disagree and have contradiction, because they were not meant to be together in the first place.
They are just tools in a book to preach. Then the preacher uses the right passage(like in mass) for the right audience.

It didn't matter if there were contradictions and exaggeration/absurdities because the peasants and slaves (the target of Christianity) could not even read.(the Jews were not the target of this religion)

The Romans main objective was to stop the Christians(zealots) from convincing the slaves/poor/peasants to revolt with them.

Atwill gives evidence for his claims that the Flavians were involved in the production of this literature yet Richard Carrier does not address this evidence.

Richard Carrier is more devious then the previous guy but still nowhere to say such a claim:
"I actually know what I am talking about"

He knows next to nothing about The Flavians and the politics of that era from what he has written.

I read like 1/3 of his BS and did not find anything which in anyway infers with the evidence I presented.
He just attacks Atwill's credibility and points out some mistakes that Atwill might have made.
He is dodging the argument clearly because he knows he has nothing on the main argument.

Atwill is a man and not god and he may do less mistakes then god but he is still a man. :)

Point out a valid argument to show that Atwill main argument and evidence are wrong instead of making me read articles from top to bottom please.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.