Jesus was an apocalyptic teacher who was seen to perform miracles. He was elevated in one circle of followers to being virgin born. Paul cast him in an ahistorical Hellenistic Savior myth. Another segment of the movement continued as Jewish followers who expected his return but did not believe in the virgin birth or that Jesus was god or divine. The Jewish Christian traditions about Jesus become elevated with the Johannine Hellenistic Logos Christology.

I would say that many of us who are atheists would not view our position as a belief. Rather we would defend it as a fact. There are some atheists, I am sure, that simply believe there is no god. But if you ask them why, they will say, " I don't know it just does not seem like there is one." I might think of that as a belief. I am not certain. I believe it really is "unbelief." But we generally see "belief" as an demonstrated or proven posture. The term used by Christians, "believe (pitis)", is a stance in which there is trust in the object that is believed. If I say, "I believe in you", I am not making a claim of just your existence (which is really secondary and a given), I am stating that I trust in you as a person, car, wife, god, etc. When an atheist states she does not believe in god it is not a statement about "she does not trust god", it is about the existence and not relationship.

For the real central 'dogma' of Jesus see Matthew 22:36-40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMo5R5pLPBE

At “Freedom Fest” Christopher Hitchens claimed the central dogma of Jesus was ‘take no thought for tomorrow’ , which comes from Matthew 6:34. This was after "granting" what can only be described as several miracles (for the sake of argument) but 'give you that' he did. He then misunderstands 17th century English (athiest love the King James read in a modern way for sure) and critiques Jesus on what a silly idea 'take no thought for tomorrow' is.

Keep in mind he 'gave' several non scientifically explainable events proclaimed in the Bible. "Rational"?....or just faulty logic? He gave them though...and I am going to stand by that.

He left out verse 27 “And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life? (New American Standard)

Atheism:

The religious belief in a spontaneous, causeless, source-less, purposeless, meaningless existence.

Whose gods are Charles Darwin & Richard Dawkins

'Nuff said

Yes ............there are ignorant "Christians"...but "atheists" are guilty of the same.I am sure 'cocksure' Christianity offends as many athiests as 'cocksure' athiesm does Christians. Sometimes neither side will agree this is a fact (maybe it's the ignorance of the two parties in question at the time?)

Example:

Someone sent me this website (I didn't find it on my own). It's from a former "Christian" who is telling how Focus on the Family is evil. Here is how he starts what he calls "Christianity 101" (verbatim). I tried to get past it...and well just locked up....couldn't read anymore.

http://elroy.net/ehr/christianity101.html

"An almighty God decided he was either bored or lonely so he creates a universe of immense size to house one small, third-rate planet where he can create beings whose purpose is to make him feel better by loving and adoring him. "

Ok...some athiest with a better understanding of Christian theology needs to go tell this 'former Christian' your just plain ignorant and making us all look bad.

What he just claimed is Christianity 101 doesn't reflect the Bible doesn't reflect current science......it's just noise. Please even if you believe it's chance alone or some as yet undiscovered mechanism....it's not a 'third rate planet'.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

 Hi TGB,

Go ahead and repost the argument here, and let's discuss it.  I'll be back in a few.

Prove, proof, and persuade.  In the context of a conversation about "God" in this forum, how do you use these words?

My impression is that some use these words as if they have some sort of objective standard, even without qualifiers, e.g., logically prove or scientific proof.  Would you agree that this is the case here? in general? is such a use of the word necessitated by the definition? by reason?

To answer some of my own questions, I think it is not necessitated by the definition nor by reason.  First, as I see it, the purpose of a conversation about "God" in this forum is one of two things: (1) to persuade the listener that the believer is not unreasonable in his belief or (2) to persuade the listener that "God" exists.

Time and effort is unnecessarily wasted because, I believe, some tend to conflate these two purposes when each purposes might be better served by different uses of the word.  "By conflate the purposes," what I mean to represent is that some assume that one who does not require the same type of proof that he/she does to be persuaded of something is unreasonable.  For example, a person who does not require scientific or logical proof to believe in the existence of something is unreasonable.  This creates a problem because one person may be trying to persuade the other of the reasonableness of a belief through logical proof, while the other side is seeking to be persuaded that God exists through scientific proof.  The confusions plays out as follows:

 ... that if an argument can be presented where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and the conclusion is "God exists in the actual world," then would you agree that you have to accept the conclusion?

Would you agree that if there is no good reason for rejecting any of the premises, and the form is valid, then theism is rationally justified?

Can an atheist here present an example of an argument where all the premises are true, the form is valid, and yet the conclusion is false?

Is science the only way we can know things?

If not, then why do I need to present scientific evidence for God?  

Hi, I was watching youtube videos when I came accross an up to date video with mickey mouse. I was watching it with the volume muted when all of a sudden I gained the ability to mouth read his muted character. I broke down into tears as the message became so clear. Practically the whole movie clip seemed to directly relate to me the meaning of life and plans for essentially, no pun intended, global domination through the humble seeking of Roengentium or element 111 on the periodic table. The final parts of it seemed to communicate that with enough Roengentium we could go on an d develop terraforming.. antigravity.. even force fields. And the women would even get to have their own mini roegentium stores on the side of helping their man collect it. With enough Roegentium everyone on earth would be happy and communicatable. I have found mickey mouse to be the greatest achievement of man to pass down sacred knowledge even god did not choose to communicate to us.