It was a metaphor!

Probably why I've never heard of it until now. Good to know these things, thanks.

After too much public pressure Clinton told the indonesians to stop in 1999. But West Papua was not so lucky, it still continues there to this day. With full support of Australia.

I agree. I forgot to mention that they didn't tell anyone that they needed money. While compassion is certainly good, I think the motivation for showing compassion is also important.

Why do you think cosmological arguments don't prove their conclusions? If Jesus rose from the dead, wouldn't that prove that God existed? Everyone knows that they're right about all sorts of topics other than religion, but that doesn't mean that we can't have any degree of certainty about who is right on those topics. If a religion is right, then waiting until you're dead to find out who is generally too late.

I reject premise 2. Conclusion 2 is only true if they all have an equal chance of being correct and even if they did, conclusion 3 wouldn't follow. Conclusion 4 assumes that being worshiped is this god's only motivation, so it is not necessarily true and conclusion 5 doesn't follow.

If someone thinks a cosmological argument has true premises and a valid form, then why does believing the conclusion that God exists not involve logic? Likewise, if someone looks at the historical evidence and comes to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for what happened, then how is rational thought not involved? After someone forms the belief, it is natural to look for arguments to confirm or deny whether they evaluated the evidence correctly, but there needs to be logic or rational thought involved in order to form the belief in the first place. The only reason to form the belief is if the evidence indicates to you that it is true, so if someone had no idea why they believed something, then they wouldn't have formed the belief that it was true in the first place.

I told you why logic doesn't work and even provided you an easy example from a first year Analysis I course.
I can't make it easier than that, to explain why logic doesn't work if you can't falsify premises.

Ok, I'll take your "Santa" example, also it was YOU who made that statement.
Rather simple: a man going around making presents? Logically absolutely possible.
A flying reindeer? Not possible, as it would violate the laws of aerodynamics.

Visiting all places on earth and handing out presents?
Not very likely, even if we ignore travel time (which is fine as we can make an argument about smaller numbers in this case, as when it's not true for small numbers it can't be true for big numbers either).
Let's assume generous 5 seconds to hand out a present to every person, that would mean that Santa Claus would approximately need 16.203,70 days or by the American system: 16,203.70 days.

Adding travel time that number would even be higher.

And now, was that really what you wanted to hear? Did you really want to get into THIS discussion?
But I get it, your next step probably will be "but when I say that santa could do it, what then?"
To answer that before hand: Then I couldn't PROOF that you're wrong, in the same way I can't proof that magic does not exist, it all depends on the definition.

If a certain aspect violates any nature law I can disprove that, but other aspects might not be so easy to be disproved. That doesn't mean that I believe in it, but the same goes for religion: I don't believe in it and I find some concepts strange, very unlikely and some even riddicilous but that doesn't mean that I've PROVEN that it can't exist.

And that's the thing, why in science the burden of proof lies upon those who make a claim.
For example if a scientist would say: "Santa exists" he/she would have to proof it. That's why this is a non brainer discussion, as we wouldn't have it by scientific standards.
In religion that's thrown out the window because you can't have a scientific discussion, as this very topic just proves. See how you tried to tell me that I'm not smart because I don't take your side and how somebody who believes in god says how I'm not smart because I don't took his side?

Both of you are absolutely sure that you're right, by using the same mind set (we're all humans, after all) and both of you are absolutely right that you know the truth.

It's interesting how you turn my words again. I said it's unprobable that you're more intelligent than everyone else.
It's not impossible but very unlikely.

And I stay agnostic as I can't use binary logic to PROOF (hint: we're not talking about probabilities here) or empirical means to find PROOF who's right. Once again: I'm NOT saying that any god exists or doesn't exist. I say I can't decide it. You're implying that I'm therefore thinking that one or the other exists but no, I'm undefined in that area (remember your school math and you'll remember what undefined really means).

Yes, I'm pretty sure he would be interested to read this thread and afterwards you'd get immediately promoted to professor for solving a millenia old debate in your own, unique way which implies that you're the single smartest person on this planet (as seen by your last statement, but I'll get to that).

Your problem is, that you take a probability which is divergent to a certain number (that is undefined at this point but lies between 0 and 1) as a simple, boolean statement, implying that it can be expressed as right or false.

I like how you feel so intelligent, to judge upon other people's "smartness".
You just can't get the difference between saying "I can't make an informed decision" between "thinking that all gods exist". The latter would already mean taking a side, which is NOT what agnostics do.
Especially as this stands in direct contrast to what you just side.

If somebody who says "I believe in an eternal being" which doesn't trivially exist by your words is smarter than the person who says "I can't scientifically prove or disprove the former statement" than I wonder how you would define smartness and what your personal view on science is.

In my opinion many of your argument arises from a misunderstanding what agnostics are. You're assuming that somebody totally neutral towards religion must therefore consider that everything exists and thus believes in a way in everything at once which must really look foolish.
But no, agnostics explicitely don't believe that anything exists or doesn't exist because there's no way to make an informed decision by means of science (only talking about probabilities).
That means that my stance is absolutely undefined on that topic.

I also wonder why you're so aggressive towards people who're absolutely neutral on this topic. And why you're against following scientifict conventions like applying logic, and telling us "math is shit".
In all honesty, I want to know: what's your background, because you claim to be able to judge how smart others are, so I really want to know: what makes you think that you are so clever?

Then again, I'll leave this topic now.
I know, you'll be absolutely sure that you've "won" then and if you need/want that feeling, that's perfectly fine.
I've repeated my arguments over and over, I can't do more than that.
At the very moment where emotions take over a discussion (and yes, I've been dragged into it, too, no doubt about that) a discussion can't be objective and driven by rational arguments anymore.

This isn't just logic, it is just common sense. You can't be omnipotent,eternal and omniscient together.

Then you just discarded Islam as well, since their prophet flew on a winged horse to heaven. See now what the point is?

Come on, he is Santa, you can't judge him by logic and human standards. You can't know he isn't really out there, invisible, bringing only presents to me, because I'm so special.

See, and that is my point, agnosticism is totally unnecessary.

Gods violate the laws of logic, yet you still think they are possible.

There is no need to prove that. If there is no evidence, the default position is that it doesn't.

Nope, I think you aren't smart because you think Xenu could really be out there.

Nope, I just know what isn't true.

Irrelevant. Don't make this about me.

You are taking this holier than thou stance of "I only know that I know nothing" to an unnecessary extreme. This statement should only apply to possible things, not the impossible.

You seem to put me on a pedestal, like I just invented the proof that gods are illogical. This is old stuff. But usually religious people don't claim logic for their god.

Not really. My Analysis professor was a total dick, he would love this.

If you can't decide whether thousands of gods might exist, then you think they could exist. And again obsessed with my intelligence, I must have really impressed you!

I know what they are, I used to call myself that to act all smart, diplomatic and open minded before I informed myself too much about this whole topic, and somewhere I picked up this designation and thought it was snappy, but the more I learned, the more I realised it is hardly better to allow the possibility for shit someone just made up than being religious. You will get there.

Uhm you are the one who discarded logic.

I have no other life. For about 10 years now all I do is sit at home and study this crap.

Too bad, but I will have won, once you realise, just like I did, that agnosticism is unnecessary. I know it's hard to change your mind on an internet forum, but you will think about what I said in the future. That is the whole point of these discussions, not to "win" immediately.
Although you could have done more, like answer my questions, my points, you know...actually discuss.

Well, I don't even know Zeitgeist, and I've only seen part of that Tom Hanks movie. Entertaining, nothing more.

As for "eyewitness accounts":
1st: What special details? I don't see it that way, on the contrary.
2nd: There is evidence that at later gospels copied from earlier ones. Also there are more gospels than the canon versions, and they are contradictory. What is canon and what isn't was chosen by a human gremium. Of course they would choose those that fitted their purpose the most.
I personally find the events following the resurrection vague at best and contradictory at worst even in the offical versions. As I stated before I hold it possible that Jesus survived the whole ordeal. Since I consider the "after resurrection" accounts as very weak, I also hold dit possible that he died and his body was simply removed.
I hold it possible that Jesus did not even exist, although I see this as very improbable. I - believe it or not - even hold it possible that there was an actual resurrection. I can't disagree with "Faith can move mountains", but then it's human faith that does that, not some god.
3rd: Even if those eyewitness account were accurate, ask some eyewitnesses from a David Copperfield show. Millions of people saw how he walked straight through The Great Wall in China. There are lot of people out there that actually believe that this guy can do magic.

Well it helps to find things and date them. Sometimes it help not find things that should be there. Like finding and identifying a place that the OT talks about but finding no trace of jewish culture whatsoever. Or finding out that the place is there, said events happened, but it was blown out of proportion by the storytellers.

The stories surrounding Gilgamesh tell of a great flood in the past. The gods wanted to wipe everything out, but there was one god Ea that took pity and told the hero Utnapishtim of the impending doom. He advised that he secretly builds ship (camouflaged as a big house and saves his family, and "all the beast and animals of the fields".
The Gilgamesh flood is believed to be a retelling of the flood story of "The Epic of Atra-Hasis".

As a matter of fact surprisingly many cultures from around the world have stories about a great flood. So many assume that there might have been a world wide catastrophic event (the opposite theories being that it was a local flood in Mesopotamia (not unlikely there) or it's a metaphor altogether). Still, no hard evidence of a natural disaster of that scale has been found.

So you claim "your flood" is unique? On what ground? "Superficial similarities like "building a huge boat and saving all animals with it"?

Well to me the themes are very much alike. For you they are different because? Only one is "true"?
Of course a horse carriage, a bus and a Truck are very different, but they're all about transport. And we're not comparing ships and airplanes here that are also about the transport-theme.

The crown is said to have been woven from some thorny bush. Unfortunatly we don't know what kind. Thorns from plants may hurt, but beaten agains the skull they would probably break. Still, head wounds don't usually lead to much blood loss (the neck is another matter) when the skull is not punctured. Try it and bang your head (No stop, please don't. Ask a physician).
Of course the beating on the head could lead to severe cerebral concussion and even hemorriaging in the brain.

Well, to us this may seem horrible, but there are a great many more frightening execution methods. Humans always have been very inventive at this. :-(

Will have to look further into that. Got it from somewhere that Jesus' legs were not broken at explicit request. But maybe you're right.

Well the thing is, how I gather it, they already had spices, and then went to get more. Why didn't they brinf enough in the first place?

Why should this be embarrasing? That there were women? The empty tomb is part of the resurrection story, so you can't really leave this out, can you? And what historians give "strong credibility" (aside from Christians, that believe it anyway)?

Ahem, no. But since you disregard all the parallels to other dying-rising gods I guess I can't convince you. And dying for a greater purpose is pretty "ultimate" to me.

Well rebels were persecuted all over the world for different reasons and still many groups found enough people to even make an overthrow in the end.

And I'm saying that's not valid. That's like saying "Americans are war-like" and "Germans are Nazis". You can't understand the individuals on grounds like that. But often it's the individual that changes the course of history.

Sorry, got a B too much. I meant 50CE.

By the number and age of shipwrecks for instance it is hinted that around 50CE there was the highest density of trade within the empire. This leads to the assumption that the economy was at it's apex then. The military apex (number of troops) was at ca. 400CE. There was a significant rising in military power from 50CE on. One could see this as a sign of increasing unrest within the empire, since there's wasn't much of conquest going on. But of course there also were outside factors. The foreshadowing of the Migration Period/Völkerwanderung (began ca. 400CE) might also have been a factor.

Laws of nature are not prescriptive, meaning that it is impossible for nature to act differently, but are descriptive, meaning that in that they best explain how we have observed that nature acts. In other words, Newtons laws of motion didn't disprove the discrepancy in Mercury's orbit, but rather Mercury's orbit disproved an aspect of his laws.
I think you're making the same mistake when it comes to science because our interpretation of scientific data can always be wrong.
Science is a great method for gaining information about things that are observable, repeatable, and measurable, but is is not the only method of gaining information.
The main way to prove that something doesn't exist is to show that it has an inherent logical contradiction, so a god that is described as being able do logical contradictions would quickly disprove itself. Jamotide as show himself quite adept at disproving his strawman.
Are you absolutely right about that? Everyone thinks they are right about the things they think are true, regardless of the topic, otherwise they wouldn't continue to think that those things are true.

Correct, but it is the only method to gather reliable information from which accurate specific predictions can be made. For example the existance of Neptune before it was discovered . Other methods can't do that.

edit for my agnostic friends: the planet of course, not the god who doesnt exist which, unlike you, I am 100% sure of

The christian god is a strawman for what? For your personal god that you modified to be logical?

Well you are quick to disregard thing as "conspiracy theory" if they don't fit your view. I know the "light bulb" is not "proven". It may not be a light bulb at all. I don't really see where the world "conspiracy" fits in.
The light bulb is just a theory. It explains a few findings and would explain some other things, too. It may be true or wrong. There's no need to see "conspiracy" there.

As I know from own experience, history as a science is a pretty difficult business. Like any other science "we are standing on the shoulders of giants". But those giants (while often brilliant) were very biased. The main bias was/is that the old cultures were primitive and superstitious. From this bias, a lot of findings that could not be categorized ("what's that thing for") were simply declared "religious", so no further explaining was needed.
For a long time we thought the pyramids in Egypt were built by slaves. Now we know they were built by paid contract workers, and with this knowlegde it makes a lot more sense how they could feed all those people (you don't need a large military force to keep them in check).
We know now that the Vikings were in America. When I went to school this was considered impossible. Schliemann was laughed at when he went searching for the city of Troy. Thor Heyerdal was declared mad for suggesting that our ancestors even before the vikings were able to cross oceans - well he went on to prove that it was hard, but far from impossible.

Also, when in the 20th century a lot of (in terms of history) laymen took a look at the findings this brought a whole lot of new knowledge (and raised many new questions). A lot of those people had pretty crazy ideas (like alien visitors as gods) and that makes it easy to disregard them. But in their hunt for proving their theories they sometimes turn up with stuff that really begs questions. Like buildings that with the assumed technologies from the culture are not reasonably explainable, for mass of the bricks or perfection of the fitting and surfaces.
I think the most of the "inexplicable" things are rooted not in alien technology but in our underestimating the knowledge and craftsmanship of ancient cultures. Adn this underestimating is rooted in the heritage of western sciences that saw the "enlightend western culture" as the pinnacle of civilization and all other (with a little exception for Romans old Greece) as superstitious primitives. This has become better in the end of the last century, but we still rely on books and scriptures that are written in this spirit and it influences us.