Did Jesus of Nazareth Actually Exist?

[Colonel Olrik]

No, what I mean is that either you believe there is a god or you believe there is no god, and no one -- NO ONE -- has the remotest justification to tell you which one to believe, because neither belief can be proven. That, sir, is what I meant.

Hell yes, and I have a fire breathing dragon in my garage

Of course I can believe, through faith, that God exists. But that belief is still irrational. There is no way you can state it is equally as possible to exist or not a God

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Why not?

[Colonel Olrik]

Think about the fire breathing dragon. I claim that it exists. Then you'll say: fantastic, let me see it. I'll answer: It's invisible, undetectable, etc.
Now, are you forced to believe me? logically, to which side do you think falls the burden of proof? Which statement is more valid: mine, that the dragon does exist, or yours, that it does not?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Think about the fire breathing dragon. I claim that it exists. Then you'll say: fantastic, let me see it. I'll answer: It's invisible, undetectable, etc.
Now, are you forced to believe me? logically, to which side do you think falls the burden of proof? Which statement is more valid: mine, that the dragon does exist, or yours, that it does not?

Neither is valid, since it is impossible for you to materially prove the existence of an invisible, intangible object and it is impossible for me to disprove it. You may point out phenomena which can be attributed to such an object, and I may point out contradictory phenomena, but neither of us can concretely prove the other incorrect. Further, my stance is this: it's none of my business whether you believe you have a firebreathing dragon, so long as you don't try to crash my barbecue with it.

[Darth Wong]

Neither is valid, since it is impossible for you to materially prove the existence of an invisible, intangible object and it is impossible for me to disprove it.

Irrelevant. We need to come to a rational conclusion about whether our mystery phenomenon exists, rather than refusing to come to any conclusion without absolute proof for a positive (possible, but not present) or absolute proof of a negative (completely impossible, and thus a stupid demand). Given that situation, the only rational conclusion is that it does not exist, because theories which incorporate extra redundant terms are inferior to those that don't.

You may point out phenomena which can be attributed to such an object, and I may point out contradictory phenomena, but neither of us can concretely prove the other incorrect.

All you have accomplished is to prove that there is as much reason to believe in God as Santa Claus.

Further, my stance is this: it's none of my business whether you believe you have a firebreathing dragon, so long as you don't try to crash my barbecue with it.

Irrelevant. No one said it's anybody's business whether Joe Blow has an irrational belief. We're simply pointing out that it's irrational. We are making a statement of fact, and you have been trying to evade that fact.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, conceded: it's irrational. As in, nonscientific. Other than that, what's your beef?

[Darth Wong]

Okay, conceded: it's irrational. As in, nonscientific. Other than that, what's your beef?

Actually, irrationality is even worse than being unscientific. It means that someone who believes in such a thing is being illogical, ie- not thinking clearly.

As for my "beef", it's simple: my beef is that people like you always jump down the throats of anybody who states matter-of-factly that "God does not exist", screaming that we have not produced proof of a negative (a stupid demand because there is no such thing as proof of a negative). The FACT that God does not exist is akin to the fact that Santa Claus does not exist; it is the only rational conclusion.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Okay, conceded: it's irrational. As in, nonscientific. Other than that, what's your beef?

Actually, irrationality is even worse than being unscientific. It means that someone who believes in such a thing is being illogical, ie- not thinking clearly.

As for my "beef", it's simple: my beef is that people like you always jump down the throats of anybody who states matter-of-factly that "God does not exist", screaming that we have not produced proof of a negative (a stupid demand because there is no such thing as proof of a negative). The FACT that God does not exist is akin to the fact that Santa Claus does not exist; it is the only rational conclusion.

Then I rescind my concession; it's not irrational, it's simply unfounded. And I have hardly "jumped down your throat." I am merely playing devil's advocate; otherwise, how could you have debate? And I have to object to the "people like you" bit. Guilt by association is also irrational. And in order to declare the nonexistence of god a "fact" requires omniscience, which -- even with your storied academic background -- you simply do not possess.

[Darth Wong]

Then I rescind my concession; it's not irrational, it's simply unfounded.

BZZZZTT! To believe in something which is unfounded is irrational. Try again.

And I have hardly "jumped down your throat." I am merely playing devil's advocate; otherwise, how could you have debate?

That's what you say. But you say elsewhere that atheism is a religion, based purely on "faith". No, you are precisely what I describe you to be: one who unrepentantly ignores logic when it comes to the subject of God.

And I have to object to the "people like you" bit. Guilt by association is also irrational.

Strawman. Your guilt is determined from your own words, not by association. I criticize you and anybody who shares your irrational and dishonest belief that atheism is based on "faith" rather than logic. There is nothing wrong with grouping all who share a belief when criticizing that belief directly.

And in order to declare the nonexistence of god a "fact" requires omniscience, which -- even with your storied academic background -- you simply do not possess.

Do you consider it a "fact" that Santa Claus does not exist? Or a weak theory based on "faith"? I said that it was a fact in the sense that the nonexistence of Santa Claus is a fact; it is the only rational conclusion. Please learn to read.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, the only rational conclusion is that, in the absence of conclusive evidence to support either position, a rational conclusion cannot be reached.

[HemlockGrey]

*cough*lawsofparsimony*cough*

[Darth Wong]

No, the only rational conclusion is that, in the absence of conclusive evidence to support either position, a rational conclusion cannot be reached.

See Occam's Razor.

BTW, you have just managed to paint yourself into a corner: by your logic, it is impossible to come to a rational conclusion on the existence of Santa Claus.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, Darth, that's your corner, not mine. Occam's Razor being what it is, though, the simplest explanation is generally the shortest. That being, "There's a god, but he minds his own business these days."

[Darth Wong]

Actually, Darth, that's your corner, not mine. Occam's Razor being what it is, though, the simplest explanation is generally the shortest. That being, "There's a god, but he minds his own business these days."

Wrong yet again (you're really making a fool of yourself; is this intentional?) Occam's Razor tells us to select the theory which A) fits the facts and B) uses the least number of terms to do so. The length or simplicity of the verbal description is irrelevant.

My theory has one fewer term than a monotheistic theory does: God (or Santa Claus, in this case). Therefore, Occam's Razor favours my theory. Deal with it.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Actually, Darth, that's your corner, not mine. Occam's Razor being what it is, though, the simplest explanation is generally the shortest. That being, "There's a god, but he minds his own business these days."

Wrong yet again (you're really making a fool of yourself; is this intentional?) Occam's Razor tells us to select the theory which A) fits the facts and B) uses the least number of terms to do so. The length or simplicity of the verbal description is irrelevant.

My theory has one fewer term than a monotheistic theory does: God (or Santa Claus, in this case). Therefore, Occam's Razor favours my theory. Deal with it.

That's it? That's your theory? "God"? "God" what? And didn't I tell you already that belief in a higher power is antiscientific? If it were rational, there would be no need for faith. But I think that the human capacity for faith is evidence that there is something to have faith in. Hope is another item of that evidence. Of course, these are human qualities which cannot be accounted for in your theory. After all, we biochemical machines aren't programmed with useless features, are we?

[Darth Wong]

My theory has one fewer term than a monotheistic theory does: God (or Santa Claus, in this case). Therefore, Occam's Razor favours my theory. Deal with it.

That's it? That's your theory? "God"? "God" what?

For the umpteenth time, learn to read before you fire off your hastily composed and poorly considered replies. God is the REDUNDANT TERM, not a description of my theory, dumb-ass.

And didn't I tell you already that belief in a higher power is antiscientific? If it were rational, there would be no need for faith. But I think that the human capacity for faith is evidence that there is something to have faith in.

I can't believe you think that our ability to be irrational is evidence that our superstitions must be true. That is the biggest non sequitur I have ever seen.

Hope is another item of that evidence.

See above. Hope may inspire us to do things, which is potentially useful. However, the existence of hope does not constitute evidence of whatever it is that we hope for.

Of course, these are human qualities which cannot be accounted for in your theory. After all, we biochemical machines aren't programmed with useless features, are we?

Are you seriously saying it is impossible to account for the existence of irrational thought without God? Are you seriously claiming that we were "programmed", or designed? Are you a creationist too?

[Durandal]

That's it? That's your theory? "God"? "God" what?

No, his theory just contains one term less, the absent term being "God." Clearly, you have severe reading comprehension problems.

And didn't I tell you already that belief in a higher power is antiscientific? If it were rational, there would be no need for faith.

There is no "need" for faith. Plenty of us live perfectly normal lives without it.

But I think that the human capacity for faith is evidence that there is something to have faith in.

Hopelessly circular logic. Is the human capacity for wet dreams now evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, as well?

Hope is another item of that evidence.

Worthless sentiment. Hope is evidence of nothing.

Of course, these are human qualities which cannot be accounted for in your theory. After all, we biochemical machines aren't programmed with useless features, are we?

Yes, we are, because biological evolution is an imperfect process. A guiding, omniscient, omnipotent hand, on the other hand, isn't.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

No, I am not a creationist. But I do believe that there is more to us than just a complex version of stimulus-response behavior.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

On a side note, Darth: do you believe anything? Is there anything that you hold to be true that you can't prove? Are emotions real to you? Do you dream (of biochemical sheep)?

[Durandal]

No, I am not a creationist. But I do believe that there is more to us than just a complex version of stimulus-response behavior.

And there is no evidence of that belief, which makes it irrational.

[Darth Wong]

On a side note, Darth: do you believe anything? Is there anything that you hold to be true that you can't prove?

I believe my wife loves me. Mind you, while I can't "prove" it, I can at least produce evidence consistent with that conclusion, which is more than I can say for people who believe in invisible sky deities.

Are emotions real to you?

Real in the sense that I perceive my own, yes. Real in the sense that they usually result in observable manifestations in others, yes. They are states of mind, caused by my brain functions, and the human brain obviously exists. Animals feel emotion too, you know.

God, however, does not result in any observable manifestations whatsoever, nor is there any observable phenomenon to which God is connected.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Oh, but there is. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, you name 'em, they're spawning right and left. Some of them even do good things, kind and charitable things, sometimes because that's what they think their "god" wants them to do, and sometimes because they've been inspired by other religious kooks to do good. Circular though the logic may be, God is just as real, by your terms, as human emotion.

[Wicked Pilot]

Will somebody put this retart out of his misery.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Nice of you to admit that you're using a logical fallacy.

[AdmiralKanos]

Oh, but there is. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, you name 'em, they're spawning right and left.

ROTFLMAO!!!! You think that the existence of the believer is evidence of his beliefs?

BTW, guess who "Raoul Duke Jr" is, everybody: I checked his profile, and it's Visionrazor!

Yep; another dumb-ass anti-logic anti-atheist moron (who isn't even honest enough to admit that he's religious) turns out to be a dumb-ass Trekkie fanatic too (he's the idiot who said that the Empire's vast numerical advantage would be a detriment in war because there would be more targets to shoot at).