The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something happened or exists.

In a court of law, sure.

if you plagiarise someone else’s words at least acknowledge that when you quote him.

Yes. Sorry. Late, great and sadly missed…

I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen.

that’s what I mean by arguing in religion. You can’t prove that I didn’t do a double back flip off the kerb outside my house on my sons trike last night. You can look at any available witness evidence on my past riding and test my riding in future and you’ll come to the conclusion that in all probability I’m talking bollocks but you can’t prove it didn’t happen. you can’t prove a negative (james randi I think)

In a court of law, sure.

Nope, generally.

Presumably his “someone has” referred to Jesus. According to the bible, Jesus hasn’t come back from heaven.

Pff – I’ll dig out his email address* and you can discuss it with him if you want, I’m just passing on what I heard and doing a very bad job of it. 🙂

Edit – * The vicar’s, not Jesus’s.

I have yet to see any concrete, peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that the resurrection of Lazarus did not happen. I’m playing devil’s advocate, of course, but live by the sword, die by the sword and all that.

You’re obviously not getting it.

You owe me £100,000,000. When are you paying? You cannot provide any peer-reviewed court-admissable evidence that you don’t, simply because it is not possible to prove a negative.

All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn’t all bad, like people were saying. 🙁

Every now and then someone will post about how religion makes people do good, but affection, compassion, kindness, friendship, sorrow, loyalty, and purpose are not the preserve of any belief system; they are endemic to many animals including man.

All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn’t all bad, like people were saying.

Well, although I 100% see where you’re coming from, my mum’s a Christian and she’s lovely, the point remains that:

A: It’s nonsense.
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of ‘good’ makes that acceptable.

I’m just passing on what I heard

And I was just making the point that, often, Christians don’t actually know very much about what they are supposed to believe.

All I wanted to do was say that Christianity isn’t all bad, like people were saying.

I don’t think anyone’s saying that it’s all bad. They’re pointing out some of the issues with both the beliefs themselves and the past and present actions of some followers of the religion.

For the record, I’m married to a Christian and she’s ok; I’ve never seen her stone a fornicator or anything. But, she’s one of the woolly liberal ones.

Yeah, can’t argue with that, and I hope I haven’t suggested otherwise. But to everyone who listedt the evils done in the name of religion, I’d say that a lot of good has been done too.

I’d just like to point out that:

1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical “Jesus” or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.

2: The idea that the character of Jesus’s mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.

Also, for the sake of balance – there has never been any horse that could fly, or various gods living on top of Olympus.

And so on…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1572150/quotes.

Hitchens sometimes gets written off as an atheist tub thumper but this quote demonstrates the depth and nuance of his thinking.

Every now and then someone will post about how religion makes people do good, but affection, compassion, kindness, friendship, sorrow, loyalty, and purpose are not the preserve of any belief system; they are endemic to many animals including man

I would add that an individual’s faith might make them do more good than they, personally, would otherwise do. But yeah, if I thought about it I could probably think of some non-Christians that are ‘nicer’ people than some Christians I know. Ultimately it’s about believing in God or not. It should improve how you are as a person but I guess we all have different starting points and rates of improvement. (I’m not suggesting that improving as a person is the sole preserve of those with faith, just that it should be a motivating factor).

Bit late with the edit…

I’d just like to point out that:

1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical “Jesus” or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.

2: The idea that the character of Jesus’s mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.

Also, for the sake of balance – there has never been any horse that could fly, or various gods living on top of Olympus.

And so on…

B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of ‘good’ makes that acceptable.

At the risk of wearing out this little drum I keep banging on, I’d say that, as good, compassionate and sociable behaviour is a trait inherent in people irrespective of their religious beliefs, so is bad, eveil and nasty.

Hitchens sometimes gets written off as an atheist tub thumper

Which is odd, his public appearances were never less than measured and polite. Much in the same way as Richard Dawkins is often described as “shrill”…

Some identity transferrance going on there, I think.

A: It’s nonsense.
B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of ‘good’ makes that acceptable.

That’s a really stupid argument.

That’s like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.

The idea that the character of Jesus’s mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.

Now that does surprise me. I’ve long been under the impression* that there are dozens of virgin birth stories, along with resurrection and messiah type stories that have been around since the history (and probably prehistory of humans).

Aren’t there quite strong parallels between the stories in the Bible and equivalent theistic/mythological stories in unrelated parts of the world (South Ameerica, Africa and the Far East)? What I’m saying is that these things crop up on a pretty regualar basis in humna cultures that are far removed from each other anyway so I’m surprised the Bible doesn’t follow a similar model to others.

* But I’m no Anthropological Theologist/Mythologist so make of that what you will.

Ultimately it’s about believing in God or not.

But if you believe in a fiction then all the “thou shall”s and “thou shalt not”s that are a required for you to measure up to this fictitious deity’s standards are also fiction. In which case they must be either delusional ramblings (highly dangerous basis for moral authority) or deliberate inventions (eg, for the purpose of giving certain people power over others).

therefore Sesame Street is evil.

Sesame Street advocated genital mutilation? Must have missed that episode.

But if you believe in a fiction then all the “thou shall”s and “thou shalt not”s that are a required for you to measure up to this fictitious deity’s standards

Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.

THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!

Please try and take this on board.

Oh, ok molgrips, but if your deity expects nothing of you, or has not revealed “His” message through divine revelation then what is “He” for?

At the risk of wearing out this little drum I keep banging on, I’d say that, as good, compassionate and sociable behaviour is a trait inherent in people irrespective of their religious beliefs, so is bad, eveil and nasty.

But people being evil because they are evil is one thing, totally different to people doing evil because their silly beliefs calls for it isn’t it? Being evil because otherwise their god will punish them?

Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.

THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!

Please try and take this on board.

He was replying to a christian who said the only requirement to be a christian was to believe in god.

That’s a really stupid argument.

That’s like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.

REALLY? 😯

**** me, I must be thicker than I thought (and I think I’m quite thick). Explain to me just how that is in any way similar.

Over and over again, we get Theism, Christianity and the Bible all mixed up with each other.

THEY ARE NOT ALL EQUIVALENT!

Actually they are. They are all nonsense.

I’d add Jesus to that!

Oh, ok molgrips, but if your deity expects nothing of you, or has not revealed “His” message through divine revelation then what is “He” for?

Who the hell knows? Maybe he’s not ‘for’ anything? If there really was a divine being who created everything, he could just be doing it for the hell of it surely?

All that stuff about God loving us and needing worship and the like, that’s all just the Bible. You can believe in God without having to believe in the Bible at all – or just bits of it. It’s up to you. You may consider the Bible to be a collection of writings by people, or the word of God.

Actually they are. They are all nonsense.

Not equivalent nonsense though.

That’s a really stupid argument.

That’s like saying that people have been responsible for wars and death, therefore Sesame Street is evil.

Name one evil act that has been committed in the name of sesame street. Just one.

Mr Woppit – Member

I’d just like to point out that:

1: There is no evidence to support the idea of a historical “Jesus” or any of the events portrayed in that connection. Indeed, the gospels actually read like four works of fiction, none of which agree with each other in details.

2: The idea that the character of Jesus’s mother was a virgin is the result of an early mistranslation from the greek.

1: Without making any claim for divinity of Jesus, there is exactly the same sort of evidence for an historical ‘Jesus’ as there is for an historical ‘Caesar’ or many other historical figures. Documentary accounts that correspond with archaeological data. You may, of course, wish to interpret the claims of some of those accounts differently to those for whom they were written, but I am afraid that what constitutes history is made up of facts and figures determined by precisely the same sort of evidence that you are deriding. From the point of view of genre alone, the Gospels do not look like fiction works at all. Such categories have no application in antique literature.

2: You make this claim based on what, and whose, evidence? Some History Channel spokesperson? I read Greek. In fact, I read that Greek. Never in my time in the universities have I heard such a claim.

Jesus lived in Jerusalem and his bezzie mates were called Mathew, Mark, luke & john!

jekkyl – Member

Jesus lived in Jerusalem and his bezzie mates were called Mathew, Mark, luke & john!

However flippant, that is at least closer to the historical truth, as determined by conventional historical/archaelogical/palaeological means, than Woppit’s simple dismissal. Bear in mind, of course, that I am not, by saying so, making any further claims in that statement.

@ SaxonRider.

1: Just two examples of the historicity of Caeser not shared by the alleged Nazarene – coins and contemporaneous, witnessed accounts. The gospels were all written long after the alleged crucifiction. Many assume that the quoted authors are the disciples. Not so.

Just one example of many on the fiction – “jesus” is standing alone in the garden of Gethsemane having a detailed conversation with “god”. Others present are described as being at a distance and asleep. This being the case, who is doing the reporting?

2: http://remnantofgiants.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/francesca-stavrakopoulous-virgin-birth-and-matthews-mistranslation/

More of interest here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

To get back to the original subject of the thread: similarly, in that all accounts of “jesus” and his actions derive from people who heard of it at least second hand and are not reliable witnesses, the idea of there being a “god” and an “afterlife”, is just people saying so because they have heard other people saying so. There remains, after all this time, no actual evidence…

This is interesting too: Ancient Confession Found: ‘We Invented Jesus Christ’

Name one evil act that has been committed in the name of sesame street. Just one.

Doing evil in the name of Jesus does not make Jesus responsible.

SaxonRider – how about a short spin Sunday morning?

There remains, after all this time, no actual evidence…

We’ve touched on this before, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Doing evil in the name of Jesus does not make Jesus responsible.

There have throughout history been plenty of evil acts perpetrated by the religious in the name of their religion. Now how about answering the question that I actually asked rather than trying to shift the goalposts.

We’ve touched on this before, but absence of proof is not proof of absence.

No one has argued otherwise. Absence of proof however doesn’t mean that you can make anything you like up and use the absense of proof as some sort of vinciation of it’s truth.

Which question? Can I name any evil acts perpetrated in the name of Sesame Street?

I thought it was a rhetorical device rather than a real question. The answer is no, I cannot. Obviously. But I think you are not really following the point I was trying to make.

Oh no I was following it just fine. I was trying to get you admit that your criticism of

B: Religions as a whole (including Christianity), are (or have been) responsible for homophobia, subjugation of woman, and child genital mutilation. No amount of ‘good’ makes that acceptable.

that you called a “stupid argument” was a false equivalent and not logically sound.