There are Atheists that murder people too

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. Anti-theist would be the wrong word. A theist is someone who accepts the existence of God (nothing more than God's existence is implied by theist). An atheist simply denies the existence of God.

I don't think "secular fundamentalist" is right either, since, by definition, secularists don't have anything to be fundamental about! We have no s ...[text shortened]... of choice, theists tend to be quite as quick as atheists to jump on that and exploit it.

If it is as you say, that the majority of atheists would be swayed by actual evidence of God (I don't believe it to be the case; it seems we humans are more swayed by our passions than our intellects, which is not necessarily a completely bad thing, IMHO), and you count yourself among that majority, may I suggest a couple of books? If you are sincere, and will read the books, and then communicate with me about those books, I will then happily send you a reimbursement to cover the cost of those books.
Here are the books:
"There Is A God" by Antony Flew/Roy Abraham Varghese, and
"God's Universe" by Owen Gingerich.

Let me know what you think.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Provide a single shred of empirical evidence for your case.

Currently, Christianity has, for anyone who looks at it objectively, the same credibility as Santa Claus and fairies.

How about history, fool!

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
How about history, fool!

Which peice. I like the bit where Charlemagne kills those 10,000 people for not converting to Christianity. Or the one where they burned Bruno to death as a heretic. Fun times.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
How about history, fool!

What has history got to do with empirical evidence for god? All history shows is that there have been masses of people who have signed up to Christianity. But a weight of followers is not empirical evidence for the existence of god.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
If it is as you say, that the majority of atheists would be swayed by actual evidence of God (I don't believe it to be the case; it seems we humans are more swayed by our passions than our intellects, which is not necessarily a completely bad thing, IMHO), and you count yourself among that majority, may I suggest a couple of books? If you are sincere, a Abraham Varghese, and
"God's Universe" by Owen Gingerich.

Let me know what you think.

If I find them to be rubbish will you compensate me for my time?

Currently, my rate is $30 an hour.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Which peice. I like the bit where Charlemagne kills those 10,000 people for not converting to Christianity. Or the one where they burned Bruno to death as a heretic. Fun times.

You just demonstrated the point I made in my first post on this thread, my dear anti-theist.

Originally posted by Starrman
What has history got to do with empirical evidence for god? All history shows is that there have been masses of people who have signed up to Christianity. But a weight of followers is not empirical evidence for the existence of god.

Would you like to discuss the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? That's the history I'm talking about. If so, I'll start a new thread because we've gotten somewhat off topic.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
If I find them to be rubbish will you compensate me for my time?

Currently, my rate is $30 an hour.

No, just the price of the books.

Originally posted by RBHILL
There are Atheists that murder people too

Really? I thought they were all saints.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
Would you like to discuss the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? That's the history I'm talking about. If so, I'll start a new thread because we've gotten somewhat off topic.

No, because it's not empirical. Again, you're using a number of unchecked sources as evidence for something which needs not hearsay, but testable, measurable data.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
You just demonstrated the point I made in my first post on this thread, my dear anti-theist.

Again with the make believe terms of reference.

I have pointed out why that term doesnt make any sense whatsoever, yet you continue with your rubbish,

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
Would you like to discuss the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ? That's the history I'm talking about. If so, I'll start a new thread because we've gotten somewhat off topic.

I would love to.

Originally posted by Starrman
No, because it's not empirical. Again, you're using a number of unchecked sources as evidence for something which needs not hearsay, but testable, measurable data.

So you're saying there's no way to know if something happened or not?!? You're going to put a lot of historians out of business with your astute mental acuity. WARNING TO ALL HISTORIANS! - STARRMAN IS ABOUT TO PUT YOU ALL OUT OF BUSINESS!
That's OK, they know there's no future in that job anyway 😉

Originally posted by Palynka
Really? I thought they were all saints.

Well in the eyes of God all true Christians are called Saints. So that includes all the Christians in the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
So you're saying there's no way to know if something happened or not?!? You're going to put a lot of historians out of business with your astute mental acuity. WARNING TO ALL HISTORIANS! - STARRMAN IS ABOUT TO PUT YOU ALL OUT OF BUSINESS!
That's OK, they know there's no future in that job anyway 😉

We're not talking about whether a guy in the past killed some king or something. We're talking about reversing the known laws of biology, accepting that magic exists and that the laws of physics are therefore also nonsense. That's not something I, or anyone, should be prepared to do on 2000 year old writing. History is not empirical, it is opinionated, often misleading or mistranslated and cannot be considered scientific proof of anything. So whilst I am prepared to accept that, for example, Henry VIII had 6 wives because of an overwhelming body of evidence for it, a lack of evidence against it, and no reason to consider the sources of the information untrustworthy, I cannot apply the same historical view to god.