To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

All things which compete with the written evidences of a "Creator" is atheistic itself. The Bible may be similar in other scripts of mythology but if you solely investigate the writings of its different authors, they never contradict. They will only contradict if your thoughts are already full of contradictions. I never claim, I cited the events written by the Gospel writers. In support? You research the writings of Tacitus and Josephus. There are theists who don't question the veracity of the Biblical accounts, but many of them [not Bible believers] don't fully believe the Biblical accounts.

Truths to me may be lies to you and vice-versa. I don't insist that you accept that there are angelic/spiritual beings. I stated here because the creation myths of other surrounding peoples during Moses' time lacked any stories about angelic beings.

Evil, in the sense, that these fallen angels had revealed stories of which stories they didn't have any part of the "Great Flood" stories.

Nothing outside? The universe is the widest evidence of a "Creator." Your cell is also an evidence that there is a "Creator." Atheists are also evidences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh look, you managed to quote my post while simultaneously avoiding the point of that post AND making unsupported assertions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lack of contradiction is not evidence of veracity. After all, the writings regarding the Roman gods do not contradict, at least as far as I am aware.
And please understand that if you cite events written in the Gospels as true then you are making a claim as to their veracity.
Tacitus and Josephus merely write that someone referred to as Christ was crucified. How does that support everything else in the Bible, least of all the actual existence of God?

Which does nothing to address the issue, that you make claims and do not support them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think rebuttal to this point has been done to death in this thread alone, and I for one have little intention of repeating it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So it's possible on judgement day that atheists will be proven right?

 

Lack of certainty is a strength of our position, not a weakness. I doubt your claim that atheists in general lose their atheism when dying.

 

Then exercise that strength by declaring uncertainty as to whether they lose their atheism when dying.

 

I'm sure it's happened. I'm also sure that it often doesn't happen (Christopher Hitchens).

 

I'm sure that living atheists become dead believers

 

You are sure that dead people have beliefs?

 

Not sure you understand the difference between a belief and a myth. Myths are fine, they are recognized as fiction. Beliefs can be harmful if they are based on fiction.

Note, atheists don't believe in Satan, either.

 

Definitely.

 

With their brains. That are dead.

 

Well obviously certain brain-dead people have beliefs...

 

Dear readers here, please pay close attention to this exchange I am having with Sarkus

From Pachomius
Okay, please Sarkus, are you advocating the proposition that everything with a beginning need not have a cause?

From Sarkus
No. I'm saying I don't know whether it is true or not that everything with a beginning need have a cause.
​

Please Sarkus, rewrite your statement above.

Here is your statement from above,

No. I'm saying I don't know whether it is true or not that everything with a beginning need have a cause.
​

and I will disassemble it into its components:

(1) No
(2) I'm not saying
(3) I don't know
(4) whether it is true
(5) or not
(6) that everything with a beginning need have a cause.
​

You remember in our previous exchange of which the present one is the resumption, I told you that you are into verbosity in aid of vain pomposity.

​

I have to tell you that now you are into verbosity in aid of obfuscation.​

 

Let's be clear, all causes happen in a universe with time and space already existing in which actions can occur. So any cause would require a universe as a prerequisite.

You can see the problem there.

 

You're having difficulty with the English language apparently.
To mistake a clear and very carefully qualified statement with "verbosity" and "obfuscation" says much about your reasoning capabilities.

 

Pachomius, what is your issue here? Why are you struggling with understanding what I wrote?

To be clear: I am not making any claim on the issue, because I do not know what the truth of the matter is. I can neither support one side nor the other. You, on the other hand, have made a claim. I have asked you to support that claim. You have yet to do so.

What is more, you "disassemble it into components" and get (2) incorrect.

So what is your problem with understanding? Why are you struggling with what is a fairly basic sentence?

You then resort once again to unwarranted yet wonderfully ironic personal attacks. To what end?

 

Some atheists will be closer to the truth than many theists.

 

Dear Sarkus, in our preceding exchange on the same theme of everything with a beginning has a cause, you said that my statement is only a claim.

I like us to resume your statement that my statement everything with a beginning has a cause is just a claim.

You bring in that word claim to describe my statement, everything with a beginning has a cause, please enlighten readers starting with myself, what do you understand by your use of the word claim?

 

Forget that, what does "beginning" mean?
What is a "cause"?
What is "God"?