How can the evidence not be lacking? What evidence would even be needed to prove what we all dont know anything about? I dont know, I am not here to tell you what evidence would be evidence cause I dont know.
What I do know is that nothing has ever proven divinity of any sort. Certainly not an empty grave.
Do you think capital punishment held people back from robbing graves back then? Maybe his own disciples dragged him out to spread the word and create a divine truth where no trues is, who the heck knows what happened there? How is that evidence for Divinity?

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 19 2024 07:06am

you've never researched evidence yet claim lack of evidence? I think a more honest approach would be to look into the evidence, even if you are non religious. ~1/3rd of the world is Christian, the West is based off of Christian values including law, morality, behavior, ideals, etc. The resurrection of Jesus is the most influential event in human history even from a secular perspective, I think it's worthy of a deeper inspection.

you cannot prove divinity with historical evidence, you can't prove anything at all with evidence so asking for 'proof' of divinity would require some type of logical argument. Science can't prove things, proof is in the realm of logic, mathematics, etc. Asking for proof is nonsensical.

This post was edited by majorblood on Sep 19 2024 07:28am

Look, Jesus resurrection has NO HISTORICAL SOURCES AT ALL to back it up. All sources of it are the gospels, which were all written half a century to a century AFTER the supposed events from anonymous writers.
All those texts have theological bias and are very likely trying to push their own agenda.
I am not even talking about proof in the sense of a 100% confirmation, I am talking about evidence that is more likely than any other explanation and that is not the case at all.
It is A LOT more likely that something else happened, so the evidence of the claim being true is very weak. Very weak at best.
A third of the world being christian is zero evidence for anything btw. If anything, it means that two thirds are not christian.

Atheism is the belief that no gods exist. It’s right in the title… “a-“ does not mean “anti” it means “without” theos means god. And no, it’s not anti-theism, that’s not how language works, it would have to be antitheismism if that were the case. But even that would make you wrong because “anti” means “against” so even your mistranslation puts you “against” theism, not merely separated from it.


What you’re trying to describe is agnosticism. Atheists are gnostic by definition.

What you’re parroting is an argument that popped up on the internet around 15-20 years ago by people just making shit up. I don’t even get the point of the argument. Just call yourself agnostic, if that’s what you are.

Here’s Diderot’s definition of Atheism from Encyclopedie, this definition stood up for hundreds of years before people like you started trying to intentionally muddy the waters.

"the opinion of those who deny the existence of a God in the world. The simple ignorance of God doesn't constitute atheism."

You can easily look up the definition of agnosticism by TH Huxley(the guy who coined the term), which, again, is what you and a lot of other people on the internet who don’t know what they’re talking about are actually describing.

atheists are people who dont believe in god.. not 'agnosticists'

No. Thats wrong. I am not parroting anything and you are still wrong about atheism. Its not my problem if you are misinformed. And yes, I am definitely against theism - but that doesnt automatically mean that I believe or am 100% convinced of gods non-existence. It means that I dont go with it, cause its more unlikely true than untrue.
An atheist can be agnostic, an atheist can be gnostic and a quick google search would get you there. Those words are not mutually exclusive.

Atheism and all of its forms arent enclosed or seperated in the same way you guys think of when you think about religions.
Again, I define myself as an atheist, an agnostic one if you will.

Thats about it. Educate yourself.

I am pretty sure you know who Matt Dillahunty is and how he arguments? He calls himself an atheist as well.
You see its an open field and smartassing around with your defintions of what is true or not doesnt get you anywhere.

Also, it is not important how I call myself. The argument isnt depending on it at all.

This post was edited by Modulok2405 on Sep 19 2024 12:42pm

Atheists can be non-believers, strict deniers, they can be quite a few things. I myself dont accept the god claim because no sufficient evidence exists. Thats about it. I am not trying to prove non-existence.

I didn’t give you “my” definitions, I gave you “the” definitions. You gave me “your” definitions, which are incorrect.

You can misuse and misdefine words if that’s what you’d like to do. It makes you incorrect. You can’t redefine words at will. Intelligent conversation is impossible if you can’t even accept that words have prescribed meanings…

You can not be atheist and agnostic simultaneously. Atheists are fundamentally gnostic, again, by the well established definitions of those words.

I don’t know who Matt Dillahunty is, but if you know who he is then I suspect he is a youtube dimestore philosopher. I base this assumption on the fact that you can’t properly define the terms you’re apparently interested in talking about, and that you’ve related to him. If I’m wrong and you think he’s on the level of Thomas Huxley or Diderot lmk and I’ll check out his videos on twitter er wherever the fk you kids get your frail information.

Ofcourse that requires you to know who Diderot and TH Huxley are, which seems not to be the case.

If a person born colorblind is told that the table in front of them is brown, what convincing evidence is there for them? He can’t “know” that it is brown because it’s beyond his capacity. He can still come to the conclusion that the table in front of him is brown based on deductive reasoning

The same thing is true for faith based reasoning

Wrong, they are people who believe in no god(s)