Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

No worries RR7, the defense doesn't have to provide any evidence at all. That is their choice. Just like OJ didn't have to use the "glove" as evidence either. This is their choice and if they think it won't help their debate; then by all means; do nothing at all.

 

Common sense this has been created.

 

Prove Genghis Khan existed, if you don't then he never existed.

 

Okay, so thousands of people that work for Nasa claim they've seen UFO's? Name them... You must use logic with logic. We are talking about people that are trained in the field of history. They have dedicated their life to history.

Your logic means that thousands of scientists have no evidence that an atom even exists. It's flawed...

 

How do we know George Washington was real? After all those documents and signatures could be forged! Heck, if I haven't seen 'em, they aren't real as far as I'm concerned.

 

The glove was evidence of the prosecution. The defense team isn't the police collecting evidence. What the defense did was discredit the evidence of the prosecution by showing it didn't fit. So thank you for proving my point.

 

You are seriously grasping straws here.

 

Okay cool, then the prosecution didn't have to use the glove as evidence. Doesn't really matter does it?

 

That's a hell of a stretch, but if oyu feel that somehow helps make your point, you're free to use it.

 

Exactly.... Because according to Denny, he needs to see God talk to him through a burning bush before he believes he is real. I wonder if he feels the same way about Caesar?

 

Doesn't really matter? I dunno. They were certain they had proof. Evidence. Like you. The defense didn't have to prove innocence. Just like atheists don't have to prove lack of existence. They received evidence, and they refuted the evidence. You are providing 10 pieces of evidence, and yet one of the pieces of evidenc is asking for someone else to prove something? That's not evidence. Maybe you should shorten your list of 10 to just a few good ones?

 

It tells me he's not an historian, distinguished or otherwise.

He's a "bible historian".

He's also all over the map in his beliefs.

Non-believer, then born again fundamentalist, now confused agnostic. All that's left is for him to find rational thought.

 

Actually no it isn't even close to a stretch. Have you seen George Washington? And you think this is crazy; because there is evidence that George Washington exists. I am merely using the same technics to give evidence that God exists. You just aren't seeing it as that because you don't want to know God exists. You are the blind man arguing that purple doesn't exist.

 

Hey Mags, what do you think of this?

[video=youtube;k0DTT3u2JZ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0DTT3u2JZ8[/video]

 

It's a huge stretch to go from a historical figure, of which there are many historical records, thousands of, and trying to somehow prove that god, the creator of the uiniverse existed. HUGE difference. One takes belief in a belief. And a belief in something never seen or done before on earth. Huge difference than a belief that George Washington lived.

 

Thanks for not providing evidence and just giving your "opinion". Opinions aren't evidence. Can we move on now?

 

Here's another VERY interesting video Mags:

[video=youtube;1wiBtYITrxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wiBtYITrxM[/video]

 

The funny thing about that metaphor is that, with the right tools, a blind man is perfectly capable of detecting and measuring any color -- even purple. There's no need for faith -- just a spectrophotometer and some means of turning its output into braille or speech. I'm still waiting for my "God-o-meter" -- maybe you could pick me up one this year for Christmas?