again, what is the evidence for Christian GOD that proves that he is more likely then the existence of an easter bunny or ZEUS or Ra or FMS?

you wrote "but of course there is more evidence that God exists than the Easter Bunny. It's just foolish to think otherwise."

what evidence is there that proves that Christian god is more likely to exist ?

Is there more evidence that the number is 7 more lucky then 8? Is there more evidence that the number 13 is more unlucky then 15?

Actually, I believe Rizeagainst has in the past indicated that he isn't 100% certain that God doesn't exist, as have most of the other regular atheists on this forum. Proof also doesn't always imply 100% certainty.

As for the public nature of the forum--since many of us have histories on the forum, it is reasonable for us to post with the expectation that that prior history is a guide to our views. Since you're new (right?), you might not be aware of some of this history and I thought I'd help by pointing it out.

As for my point being moot--my point destroys your argument. You're objecting to rizeagainst claiming to know that Christianity is wrong because he isn't 100% certain that Christianity is wrong. But if knowing that Christianity is wrong doesn't imply that you are 100% that Christianity is wrong then your argument is unsound.

That's what I was answering. And stop mentioning other entities. I was talking specifically about the Easter Bunny as that was the original comparision.

The fact that no adults pretty much ever believe that the Easter Bunny exists and billions and billions believed that the Christian God existed seems compelling. Since I know it's coming, people believing it doesn't make it true but people believing it is evidence in it's favor.

And as I said Timeline provides more evidence that God did exist as all of the evidence of the Easter Bunny points to it NOT existing and because it's a relatively (relative to the Christian God) new entity, more information and the validity of that information is easier to come by.

Anything else?

The whole reason this is so difficult for you to grasp is you have been raised believing that the easter bunny is a child's myth and GOD is something to be revered. Ask yourself, if you didnt know which one was which from the start, would the comparison seem so absurd?

No it's not evidence in it's favor, people believed the world was flat, so? how was it in the favor that the world is flat? Just because millions believe in something does not make it true. I`m surprised it is so hard for you to understand it. 100% of people can believe in something and all can be wrong at the same time 1% can believe in something and be right..


So basically the oldest religions win cause they have been believed into for the longest and have "more validity".. that's just silly

It's been awhile since I've seen a variation of "God buried dinosaur bones in order to test our faith".

I predict much hilarity from Goodie if he chooses to stick around this forum for awhile.

If we put Goodie in the 12th century and he's arguing with the one guy who believes Earth is round, these are the arguments he's likely to make:

The arguments for both Earth is flat and God(religious) is real seem the same.

My 3 year old is absolutely convinced that the Easter bunny is real. We even left out carrots for him the night before Easter and they were all eaten by the next morning. We also discovered chocolate eggs hidden all over our house.

I've been leaving out carrots for baby Jesus every evening for years and every morning they remain uneaten. No chocolate eggs, either.

Seems to me that there is *more* evidence for the Easter Bunny than there is for baby Jesus.

Okay, I'd like to hear Rizeagainst tell me that. That certainly wasn't clear in any of his posts though. He said prove and I don't know if anyone intreprets that as anything other than 100%.

OriginalPost in the post you're replying to: "Proof also doesn't always imply 100% certainty."

How can you be 100% certain of anything?

round up from 99.999999999

I don't believe this at all, not even remotely. And as I've stated many times, I don't believe in the Christian God either. I just can't stand people saying "I know" or "I've proved" when religion is involved.

So, do you guys really think we live in a world in which when you say "I know" or "I've proven" people don't assume you mean 100%? That's not the world I live in. You guys are going to have a really tough arguing with anyone if that's your stance.

If Rizeagainst didn't mean 100% then obviously all of my posts in this thread have been completely irrelevant. I kinda wish Rizeagainst had said so.

it means 100% for practical purposes. you're being impractical.

With a clarification to your question my answer is yes I do. And it is the world you live in as well, unless you don't live in my world.

You still didn't tell me what the evidence is. =)

Of course there is no evidence for the existence of the easter bunny and you have absolutely no reason to believe in the existence of it. But you can not say with certainty that it does not exist because you can't disprove its existence.

It's the same with god. There is literally no evidence for his existence (if you want to prove the opposite, name the evidence) so from our perspective it's in no way more likely that god exists than the easter bunny. I can't dismiss the possibility of his existence but my point is that this probability is not bigger than the one of the existence of the easer bunny.

You didn't read the whole thread. That is all.

So, you must live in a bubble that only contains a select few posters to this board and the philosophers that you speak of. In the world I live in, if you say "I know" and "I've proven" people assume 100%. And I know this with 100% certainty.

Yes, still absurd. Again, and hopefully for the last time, I didn't say I believe in God. I've leaned toward no for quite some time. I definately don't believe in a Christian God.

However, a Christian God or any other God is infinitely more believable than the existance of the Easter Bunny. And I'm completely open to believing either one exists.

I read it and you didn't provide any evidence. You should rethink your definition of evidence.
The fact that many people in history have believed in god is NOT evidence. A few hundred years ago you could say the same about the earth being flat...many people before have believed that the earth is flat but that doesn't make it true right? We now know that the opposite is the case and that the earth is not flat.

A so called "spiritual experience" is far from being evidence for the existence of god as well. It's an illusion by our minds which can be perfectly explained with certain psychological phenomenons.

Does not compute.

You need to read the whole thread.

What I'm saying is that I have an open mind. I think I worded that incorrectly. All I'm saying is that even if today was the first day I was introduced to the evidence for each, I wouldn't believe in either but I would be MUCH more inclined to believe in the Christian God than the Easter Bunny. And I believe that anyone who has ever lived on this earth with even half a brain would agree.

If you had to stake your life, right now, on one of them existing, which would you choose?

I don't agree with Goodie's argument. However, I feel your post here is wrong. He considers all the believers to be evidence, but he doesn't weigh that evidence very highly (I believe he's stated that he's not a Christian). Therefore, there is no logical inconsistency in believing that flat-earth-believers constitute evidence of a flat earth, albeit evidence that is highly outweighed but evidence of whatever-shape-earth we happen to have.

This has to be wrong. You can't know you're not living in the Matrix, so nothing that you claim to know is known 100%. People almost always mean "100% minus the smallest chances of some crazy other explanation."