There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[bertatberts]

Yes. Are you sure you know what an atheist is?

Yes, however my estimation of atheist intelligence, would have to be lowered after your idiotic statement. Yet I prefer to think that people who become atheist, I.E. from leaving religion, or simply studying, have a higher degree of critical thought, clearly I'm wrong.

Being the philosopher that I am,

Being the philosopher you are, you will question in perpetuity and never reach any answers, thus is the nature of philosophy.

I realize that it makes perfect sense to ask for proof of any assertion. If you assert the nonexistence of any X, then that is what you need to prove.

What evidence can there be of non-existence? If something doesn't exist, it can leave no evidence of its non-existence.
What you stated above and your previous post are the most intellectually inept statements you or anyone could make.

Did bertatberts just pull the "you're not a real atheist" card? Against Doug Shaver? Really? Wow.

I'm not so much questioning whether he is an atheist. it's always been clear to me he isn't, Yet he likes to call himself one.
However now I'm questioning whether or not he is an imbecile, too.
I can't believe he made such a statement, heck I can't believe anybody would make such a statement!

[Sparko]

Wow! just Wow! Are you sure you're not a theist. I seem to have heard this argument before! In regard to some-THING else, I wonder who or what! It was.
You do realise being the ?atheist you are? that it is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

hey dorkmeister,

Vansmack said "Archaeological data have now definitely confirmed that the empire of David and Solomon never existed."

He was making a claim for actual EVIDENCE that someone never existed. Doug merely asked him to actually provide it.

[bertatberts]

Doug merely asked him to actually provide it.

Obviously. Asking that question is the point.
You just don't ask an inanely stupid question. I repeat it is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

[Sparko]

Obviously. Asking that question is the point.
You just don't ask an inanely stupid question. I repeat it is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

No, it's nonsensical to claim that you HAVE definitive evidence of the non-existence of someone as vansmack did. Doug was just pointing that out using a bit of sarcasm by asking him to actually provide what he claimed.

zooom. Right over your head, as usual.

[bertatberts]

. Doug was just pointing that out using a bit of sarcasm by asking him to actually provide what he claimed. .

You may think that.
I however prefer to read the last two posts made by Doug 2920 and 2922 and gather from those whether he was trying to be sarcastic ( without the quote, I might add.) or whether he was compounding his ineptitude, by repeating himself, in the second post. I.E. "If you assert the nonexistence of any X, then that is what you need to prove."

[lilpixieofterror]

You may think that.
I however prefer to read the last two posts made by Doug 2920 and 2922 and gather from those whether he was trying to be sarcastic ( without the quote, I might add.) or whether he was compounding his ineptitude, by repeating himself, in the second post. I.E. "If you assert the nonexistence of any X, then that is what you need to prove."

Isn't it great to be a mind reader that automatically knows the hearts and minds of people you disagree with?

[Sparko]

You may think that.
I however prefer to read the last two posts made by Doug 2920 and 2922 and gather from those whether he was trying to be sarcastic ( without the quote, I might add.) or whether he was compounding his ineptitude, by repeating himself, in the second post. I.E. "If you assert the nonexistence of any X, then that is what you need to prove."

derp.

Vansmack said he had definitive evidence that David and Solomon's kingdom never existed, and you complain because someone asks him to provide that definitive evidence, rather than complain yourself that Vansmack is the one who claimed that he had evidence that people didn't exist.

And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously and thinks you are either a moron or a troll?

[bertatberts]

derp.

Vansmack said he had definitive evidence that David and Solomon's kingdom never existed, and you complain because someone asks him to provide that definitive evidence,

No complaint here, as Doug didn't ask that. Here is Doug's post 2920 in it's entirety, please show me where he actually asks for evidence of the kingdoms "The nonexistence of a Davidic empire does not entail the nonexistence of David.

Aside from a presupposition that there can be no truth in any religious text, do you have any evidence for David's nonexistence?"
It appears to me that he is agreeing with Van that the Davidic empire may not exist, and then asks Van for evidence of non-existence in regard to David, which is nonsensical.

I do suggest you learn to read.

[Sparko]

No complaint here, as Doug didn't ask that. Here is Doug's post 2920 in it's entirety, please show me where he actually asks for evidence of the kingdoms "The nonexistence of a Davidic empire does not entail the nonexistence of David.

Aside from a presupposition that there can be no truth in any religious text, do you have any evidence for David's nonexistence?"
It appears to me that he is agreeing with Van that the Davidic empire may not exist, and then asks Van for evidence of non-existence in regard to David, which is nonsensical.

I do suggest you learn to read.

so are you telling me that Vansmack believes that David and Solomon existed but just didn't have an empire?

claiming to have definitive evidence that an empire never existed is doing the exact same thing as claiming a person never existed. There is no way to prove such a thing, and there can be no definitive evidence of such a thing.

You are a waste of time Burpaburp. Your critical thinking skills are on par with a dead rodent.

[lilpixieofterror]

Perhaps we should ask a different question...

If Bert, Tassman, Vansmack, and Yo Lunch were put into a room together, would their combined stupidity create an IQ black hole that would suck Earth dry of all intelligence?

[Sparko]

Perhaps we should ask a different question...

If Bert, Tassman, Vansmack, and Yo Lunch were put into a room together, would their combined stupidity create an IQ black hole that would suck Earth dry of all intelligence?

Prove they exist first.

[bertatberts]

so are you telling me that Vansmack believes that David and Solomon existed but just didn't have an empire? : .

No. As I don't care what Van believes, but Doug demanding proof of non-existence is nonsensical.
Of that, there is no doubt.

[Sparko]

No. As I don't care what Van believes, but Doug demanding proof of non-existence is nonsensical.
Of that, there is no doubt.

again, he just asked for what was claimed.

If I claimed I had definitive evidence that George Washington never existed, wouldn't you ask me to to provide that evidence?

[bertatberts]

If I claimed I had definitive evidence that George Washington never existed, wouldn't you ask me to to provide that evidence?

No, for two reasons. 1, It would be infantile for me to ask for evidence of non-existence. 2, it would be infantile for you to try and produce evidence for non-existence.
Because if a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. If you don't get this very simply explanation, then there is no hope for you.

[Sparko]

No, for two reasons. 1, It would be infantile for me to ask for evidence of non-existence. 2, it would be infantile for you to try and produce evidence for non-existence.
Because if a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. If you don't get this very simply explanation, then there is no hope for you.

I have definitive evidence that Yoda never existed and was a fictional character.