What part of secular peer review don't you understand?
"they don't want Jesus to be real"
Thus more shifting the Burden of Proof. Also avoiding answering our questions to the satisfaction of we Atheists. Thus Intellectual Dishonesty.
And what part of 'Prove the existence of your 'Jesus' to the satisfaction of we Atheists' don't you understand?
You know what it would take to convince we Atheists:
image
That's all we ask.
'One day he'll do it again', you say? Then why does he tarry so...?!
If he was 'Omnipotent' as you lot claim he is, then what's stopping him from 'doing it again' NOW? If Jonathan Edwards can ask himself that simple question, and come up with the only possible answer, then what's your excuse?
When a rainbow doesn't physically exist, but can be seen...!
LGBT people - not counting the Gay Christian Network, who don't reject Christ who never said word one of condemnation against homosexuals himself - aren't the fundies persecuting them, thus they're not responsible for proving the existence of a 'God', it's YOU.
If you're not as intellectually dishonest as you would claim to be, then I challenge you to prove the existence of your 'God', but without use of the Bible, or any other theological text or philosophical method in any way, shape or form. Because when the Bible itself isn't admissible as evidence in the ultimate crucible of reality via forensic facts: a court of law, as Kitzmiller vs. Dover proved, then unless you're prepared to accuse the Conservative Christian Judge John E. Jones III - who presided over KvD in 2005 - that he's a liar, then you'd better pray that your 'God' had better start making appearances in physical form (and no, not 'Jesus', he's not allowed) right now, as that's the only possible way you'll be able to prove we Atheists wrong.
Ramses II:
image
He was worshipped as a god.
Plenty of temples, stelae, carvings, papyrii etc about him, all tested, dated & so on, empirically & by peer review to prove it, too. An actual DNA analysable body does his existence case no harm, neither. Who are you to say he wasn't an actual deity?
I'm no follower of the ancient Egyptian pantheon, but I accept that Ramses II existed. Because there's more than enough evidence to prove he existed.
So you say that your 'God' exists. Because a book of fairytales says so. A mere 'book'. Not written by said God himself, but by flawed, imperfect, fallible, contradictory men (Ezekiel stated that the city of Tyre was erased from the map. 174,000 people today would like a word with you. And archaeologists proved that Jericho NEVER had walls in the first place. Hadrian's Wall in Scotland. Great Wall of China. Both have indications of ruins/damaged sections. Not one trace arond Jericho. The bible 'a historical document'...?! No wonder it's never been subject to secular peer review: they'd tear it apart before it could seriously be considered credible in any way!).
If your book of fairytales is 'Truth', then so are ALL sacred texts; the Mayan 'Popol Vuh'. The Aboriginal 'Dreamtime'. The Norse Eddas. Even $cientology's 'OT-III Incident Document'. For, according to AiG (PROTIP: Their [I]own[/I] Intellectual Dishonesty), if post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover Evolution is credible, then Creation must be equally taught. Well, it's blown up in their own faces. For if they claim that their subjective 'Truth' must be accepted along with proven scientific fact (PROTIP: Richard Lenski's 20-year E-coli in Citrate experiment), then ALL other creation stories MUST be accepted by fundies as 'Truth' - therefore fact - too. The Aboriginal 'Dreamtime'. The Mayan 'Popol Vuh'. The Norse Eddas. Even $cientology's 'OT-III Incident Document'. Therefore L. Ron Hubbard is God, and you fundies don't have the right to think otherwise. For if you don't accept all other creation stories as 'Truth' - and therefore fact - then you have no right to have yours accepted or considered credible in any way. Least of all legally taught in US schools. (There's a very good reason why, here in the UK, the teaching of the Big Bang & Evolution is compulsory, via our National Curriculum; even homeschooling, private tutoring & 'faith' schools - if they expect to receive state funding - must conform to the law. And that reason can be summed up in a word: China)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rational_Response_Squad_debate_with_Way_of_the_Master
Your precious Ray Cumfart & Kirk Cumonhim said they could prove the existence of God without the Bible, in a "Nightline" debate with the Rational Response Squad. Cumfart & Cumonhim were reduced to using the Bible. They lied. That's Intellectual Dishonesty.
Now, can you succeed where they failed? For the sake of your entire 'argument', you'd better be a Professor of Theology - what Ray Cumfart isn't - or your 'God' had better exist to help you out, and prove we Atheists wrong: by appearing in physical form to we Atheists here & now. Because you know that's the only pssible way he could convince us of his existence. Question: what's sopping him from doing so, apart from his nonexistence...?! [/Jonathan Edwards]
Remember: we Atheists aren't the ones who claim that a 'God' exists. I refer you to Ramses II.
Even the pioneer of Monotheism, Akhenaten (who the early Hebrews probably ripped off the idea of a one god: the 'Light of the World' from, and much later; Prove that 'Jesus' wasn't ripped off from other earlier & similar mythological figures; Mithras, for one) has so much evidence for his existence, despite the pharaohs after him trying to erase his existence from their history.
So many artifacts proven to have been owned by them. Secular peer review agrees. Thus even we Atheists agree that they existed; why should we think otherwise? Prove that George Washingon never existed, Bigoted4God. You can't. Now you see why you fundies are on the losing side, when you can't so much as prove Reality wrong?
