David,

<<The reason for the controversy on this part of history is that the evidence for the existence of the NT Jesus is very scant. If the NT Jesus existed, the highest probability is that he was ineffectual as being an ‘anybody’ when alive. If the purported miracles and wonders were real and had actually happened, contemporary historians would have recorded them. They did not. There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine....

Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted.

Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians.>>

This is an example of your use of the genetic logical fallacy, which is defined as, "A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing"(available at: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html).

A genetic fallacy uses fallacious reasoning. We cannot have a logical, rational discussion when you engage in the use of logical fallacies. Here your genetic fallacy is represented by the statements:

1. "There is not one iota of credible ex-biblical evidence suggesting that the NT Jesus was divine";
2. "Holy books cannot be trusted to be truthful or otherwise all holy books would have to be accepted";
3. "Arguments for divinity or miraculous happenings based on the bible are as good as arguments base on the Koran or other holy books. They are not accepted by professional non-partisan historians".

Suseonline,

You were much more astute and questioning as a child than I. I assumed nuns, brothers and priests had a direct line to God, that Bishops must be near divine and the Pope, well, I would have put on money on he could levitate if he so chose.

It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.

You are oh so right that no one knows if there is a god or not. Popes or Imams have no more idea on this than anyone else. Many make out they do though. :)

Anyhow, enough of that. Glad you enjoyed my radio interview. The AFA fields numerous media interviews on atheism throughout the year. We have a team of spokespersons to cover it. I have a couple lined up for Christmyth day. No rest for the wicked…hey!

David

David,

David,

You wrote: <<It is most unlikely that anyone will ever prove there is no god any more than the existence of fairies will be disproven. Humans will be able to live in their minds without fear of being ever exposed by such proof. But, what is happening is that many people are working out the inconsistencies with the god concept and its many religions and that the idea is adding to the suffering of humanity.

I know that many just disregard the god thing but don’t call themselves atheists. Ostensibly though, they are atheists. It’s from the Greek, ‘without a deity’. I have the feeling that calling oneself an agnostic, and I'm not saying you do that, and this wouldn't be in all cases, but the niggling fear of a revengeful god lingers in the back ground so why take the risk.

One thing that leads folk to eventually call themselves atheist is that they tend to consider the rational universe as proof positive that a god who engineered it would not be so petty as to torture people forever because it didn't supply enough rational evidence to prove its existence. Atheists do not consider ‘faith’ to be a virtue. Faith is a not knowing position and that can and is manipulated by the many religions to the detriment of billions of people.>>

This creates false dichotomies like god vs fairies; humans living in their minds vs fear of being exposed by proof; and rational universe vs proof positive of torturing people forever.

There are strong pointers (not mathematical certainty) to the existence of God and philosopher/theologian Dr Bill Craig has demonstrated these in this interview and then a university presentation:

1. Can God's Existence be Demonstrated? (William Lane Craig), an interview between Craig and Robert Lawrence Kuhn (host of PBS' "Closer to Truth"), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFn0hopqSFw

2. Evidence for the Existence of God - William Lane Craig (Imperial College, London): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hW3ceQYxic

OzSpen,

The information you have supplied so far demonstrates you have only looked at a one-sided investigation on Jesus and the New Testament. I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.

Accepting information that ties up with existing ideas can be the result.

Maybe you shouldn't try to be too clever when you really don’t understand what a genetic fallacy is. Confusing logical progression with genetic fallacy is very revealing about your command of the subject matter.

BTW, when I say I'm not fussed as to whether a Jesus the man exists or not, I mean it. It wouldn't dent my way of thinking if I went back to the period in a time-machine and spoke with Jesus the man. The idea of Jesus the man and Jesus the divine are two completely different concepts. I’d rather you didn't call that a dogmatic stance as obviously it is not.

You rely on the New Testament Gospels (Selected out of many in the time of Constantine to make a good story) without knowing who the authors are or anything about them. You are relying on anonymous persons from 2,000 years ago with uncritical acceptance of their words. Non-partisan historical scholars don’t.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia, as with most atheists, has looked at the evidence for gods and found it wanting. Atheists are more interested in helping the world question long held believes that are causing strife. That strife has been listed in many places including the Online Opinion forums ad infinitum.

If you wish to argue about the nitty-gritty of your particular religion, please question yourself as to why you do. I find these quasi-theological discussions not worthwhile but engage in them for the sake of those who don’t. That is not heroism on my part, it just goes with the job.

David

David,

<<I strongly advise you to look at information not emanating from religious sources. Some religious material is good and accurate but much of it is false and misleading intentionally or unintentionally but mainly because of bias. The problem is working that out.>>

Here you go with another genetic fallacy. It is a fallacious argument and we cannot have a rational conversation when you do this.

I have looked at evidence from non-Christian (atheistic) and Christian sources over a period of 50 years. I have concluded that you, as an example of an atheist, will not look objectively at ALL of the evidence, including the New Testament. When you write off the historical reliability of the NT Gospels, you are demonstrating your bias.

I know what a fallacious Genetic Fallacy Argument is and you use it.

>> AFoAL, let’s move away from this banter, given you are a leading atheist give me ten reasons as to why there is no creator and I will seriously contemplate what you say.<<

This is the only request I have made of you.
Once again can you give me your ten or five or two top reasons for your atheist views?

A simple question, I am not looking for a thesis, just the reasons for your thoughts. I could list the reasons that put me in the “agnostic” camp and I don’t run a web site to proffer my views.

Please do not respond as you have with others here, by directing them to Google it. You are the AFoAI….act like it….educate me tiger.