It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That would be a first regarding the videos. I hope you do the same with the articles as you don't seem to bother reading further than their titles.
As for making fun of religions I'm all for it but will ask the same question I asked Dragger: between two extraordinary claims what makes you assess one is laughable and the other truthful?
The thing is, many religions have been cursed by the written word, for its ability to remain unchanged and therefore appearing dated in our globalized, evolving world. So much of our world today is quick to use hindsight to criticize the past, as if it should be held to the standards of today. After all, does it really mean much to mock a book that was written a millennium or two ago for its stories which resemble fairy tales? But just because you can do so doesn't make the overarching themes and takeaways irrelevant.
Given our world of having answers with the click of a simple Google search, I really feel like it has desensitized us. The ability to wonder that has drawn us to religion is being overrun by spontaneous thought with shallow references to science. Science is an amazing achievement, but it still doesn't tell us how or why we're here. I mean, consider the widely accepted big bang theory. It really just describes how the universe has evolved. It doesn't really explain how nothing became something...and if we're not starting from nothing, are we really looking at the beginning? Surely believing we all stem from an infinitely dense ball of stuff isn't all that much different than an imaginary figure who poofed us into existence. Heck, perhaps the hot dense state is just a more detailed description of how the imaginary figure started our universe!
And so as as far as atheism goes, while by definition it is the lack of belief in religion, it is still in itself a belief system. You can certainly go about disproving other touted theological events, absolutely. But none of us knows for certain what happens when we die. None of us knows for certain how we came into being. We can only take the pieces of the puzzle we're given and make assumptions from it.
So to go about disproving everyone else belief, regardless of how literal it is taken from any source, doesn't seem to be a very noble or effective endeavor. After all, 80-some percent of us still choose to formulate our assumptions based from a novel (of some variant) despite how fictional it may seem. So regardless of what others believe, just remember, yours is no different.
One last add-on: No one is obligated to validate or prove their belief. Saying so is just building a strawman wall, because there's no proof behind any belief. None of us get to be the jury.
My two cents and then some.
Outstanding post @JamesStock
@FoxRox Science is not an encyclopaedia. It's an investigation method. Science doesn't change but our understanding of it does as we investigate and discover new things. Who would you trust more if you're suffering a potentially deadly illness? The priest who will pray for you or the doctor who will establish a diagnostic and treatment? If new discoveries are made regarding the illness that give us a better treatment, is the priest any wiser?
False equivalence.
Are you only going to post it here @Risico007 or are you holding a press conference? This is a big moment in history.
That is fair. Or at least was 2000 years ago when there were very few societal norms. When the rest of society has evolved to demand such things as gay marriage, rights for women etc it leaves religion with it's blanket intolerance of anyone who doesn't follow their outdated rules as rather obsolete.
Well they are perfectly welcome to change things in the Bible and the Koran to modernise them (and indeed have made lip service to this by bringing out versions in modern language) but they don't because they can’t. If they suddenly admit ‘that bit where it says gays are an abberation’ in isn’t true then it’s all up for grabs and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
So we shouldn't hold religion to the standards of today? Why does it get a free pass? Why do we not say about flat earthers, racists who advocate slave ownership, Nazi war criminals 'Well you can’t hold them to the standards of today'?
The standards of today are called civilisation. To insinuate a desert rabble that had stonings, crucifixions and rape as the norm are as civilised as we are now is preposterous. Just look at how things have changed over just the past 30 years, when I daresay we thought we were already pretty civilised. Much as I will joke about lefty PCism it has been, broadly, a good thing. Yes old dinosaurs like me will always push back against it but theres a big difference between me ranting on about women pundits at the world cup in an exaggerated fashion for comic effect and stoning them as still happens in some societies governed by religion.
I simply don’t understand this obsession that there has to be a reason for everything. And then, arbitrarily having decided that there has to be a reason for everything, inferring that therefore there must be a god because science doesn’t have the answers.
Why when I put an egg in boiling water does it go white and turn hard? What is the cosmic reason for this? Maybe it’s just a process of physics and chemistry and there is no reason for it just like there is no reason for baby cancer. Why can we not understand that humans really are nothing that amazing to write home about and are just like any other creatures blundering our way around the planet?
Please don’t confuse science which merely explains how things happen and religion which attempts (but fails miserably) to explain why they happened as being two sides of the same coin.
Atheism is nothing like that. It is just having an open mind and requiring empirical evidence before believing something.
Contrary to what you might think I’m very excited about today and the impending revelations by @Risico007. Currently, using the best available evidence, it would suggest that when we die we rot in a hole in the ground.
If (or should I say when?) @Risico007 proves that God exists and it’s all true then I will be overjoyed that this life isn’t the end. Ok admittedly I don’t think heaven sounds that much fun (too much worship and hymns and not enough drinking and porn for my liking) but probably has to be preferable to a hole in the ground I guess.
So education and striving for the truth is not a noble or effective endeavour? The church was right when it tried to repress the work of Galileo and Copernicus?
So weight of numbers constitutes veracity and proof of something does it?
Way over 80% of people (if I had to hazard a guess I’d say about 99% in fact) can see. Does that then blind people don’t exist?
Very true. If said belief was held in private. But not when it impacts on the rest of us, gets special treatment and funding by the government, undermines the rights of others and causes wars and terrorism. Then it needs to have a bit more weight behind it than ‘I read in some old book that said it was true and that’s good enough for me.
But despite me doing a Mark Hamill fundamentally disagreeing with everything you have written it’s nice to have some new blood to argue with in here instead of just the same tired old music hall act duo. And it strikes me you have at least put a bit of thought into your post which again is welcome, even if I disagree entirely with your conclusions.
The doctor knows what he's talking about. The priest... not really. Between an ignoramus and a specialist I trust the specialist. Hence you are making a false equivalence saying both are untrustworthy in that context.
To be clear, I do go see the doctor when I have to. I never go see a priest, at any time.
I might have been lucky but that's beside the point: I got the best possible treatments when treatments were required. And others I know too: a whole team of doctors and nurses brought my son to the world by C section. To give a fairly recent example.
@TheWizardOfIce I'm also very impatient about the upcoming revelation.
Then everything we believe is a 'belief system'. I believe in Australia despite not having been - so that's a 'belief system'.
But religion relies on faith, and that's where atheism and religion stop being 'two sides of the same coin' and become something different entirely.
Anyways this is just my story and why I personally believe keep in mind I want to say a few things
1. this will not convert anyone nor will anyone here likely understand
2. I expect full mockery from Wizard 5 second after I post this (lud 10 seconds and the rest shortly after)
3. and this is me pouring my heart an soul out and being as honest as I can
4. While this is personal I will be referencing the likes of Lee Strobel and some of the youtube videos but I assure you lud this is my voice and my thoughts.
5. I will be discussing this from a historical perspective more then anything else
6. the fist part of this will Make the atheists cheer and scare Dragonpol
Sigh
First and foremost not only is atheism attractive but in a weird way I almost wish it was correct. After all I lost my father at 7 my niece was a still birth and I have had enough issues in life that the thought of an all powerful god who actually knows I exist and loves me is hard to swallow to put it lightly. I have said before I struggle with faithfulness to my wife and while certain lines (if you absolutely must know all the details pm me and I will share what I am comfortable with) I have not crossed I still failed her as a husband and again one wonders how could the heart ache I cause my wife be apart of "God's Plan" it seems ludicrous insane and down right Impossible. I also get the view from Atheists of what does a Carpenter who may or may not have existed have to do with me? I see the deaths and sufferings of billions on this planet and think this is life? There is a loving God who is "ok" with this... then I see the egos on this thread and think God created a being with an ego larger then an omnipotent god has does that even work?
but with all those questions I keep going back to the tomb. I just can't get around I can't ignore it and I can move past it. in one of the videos I posted I forget which (wiz I am sure you can find and post it) says "When I found out about the bible and how these events happened in a real location unlike the Greek myths etc I immediately wanted to learn every historical archeological fact I could because this is truly either the greatest event in human history OR the greatest conspiracy that ever existed" but lets take a step back from the tomb and discuss what even atheists who have studied the bible (like Dr Bart Erhman) agree upon
1. Jesus of Nazerth did exist: this is not questioned in the slightest from Dr Bart Erhman book (and I am paraphrasing) "I was going to write a book disproving Christianity but when I saw how many of my uneducated atheist brethren were pushing the idea Jesus never existed I had to write a book confirming Jesus existed as there is no way he couldn't exist.
2. Jesus had disciples and performed miracles: here is where it gets slightly dicey but Most new testament scholars (I believe even Dr Bart Erhman) would agree jesus had disciples and according to those disciples did miracles
3. Jesus died on the Cross: Sorry Wiz but Bart like everyone else agrees he died on the cross the roman law states (translating to modern English and again paraphrasing) "If anyone did not die on the Cross the Guards of that site would be in turn Killed on the cross for failure to make sure criminals were dead"
4. His disciples believed he rose from the dead and the tomb was Empty: all Scholars agree on this now Bart claims he is unsure why the tomb is empty and think the disciples hallucinated him (over 500 people saw the risen Christ 1 of which was actively trying to destroy Christianity before it became a religion so we will discuss the hallunication theory in detail below) but again no matter what for the last 2000 years the tomb has been empty
but let's talk briefly again about the competing theories starting with the oldest one in the book that I believe Lud subscribes to
The Disciples took the body....
Where do I begin with this... 10 out of the 12 disciples died horrible deaths deaths they could EASILY avoid if they had told the truth that they had taken the body... now a lot of modern Atheists like to point out the extremist beliefs of Islamic terrorists and equate them there is a difference for the 11 Disciples (john lived to a ripe old age of 95 I believe) this was not faith. Faith is belief without 100% concrete evidence.. they had the evidence They saw Jesus resurrected so the modern analogy doesn't work if they stole the body they would of confessed (after all the CIA recently did a report a few years back pointing out how Human when they hit a certain amount of pain will say ANYTHING to make it stop and yet the 10 refused to recant why?)
But I'm sure the greek choir of atheists here will say "But Dan maybe they were saod masochists" ok still I believe the Cia's report accounted for that so once again there is a threshold of pain that when crossed most if not all people will do ANYTHING to make it stop
Also lets look at the mind set of the 11 disciples.. they were in a locked room for fear of the Jews. Lets be bluntly honest about this whatever they saw it's hard to ignore the fact that Sunday during the day they are hiding and terrified and by Monday they are preaching the gospel sort of a shell shock in personality don't you think
But then Darth will come in say your right and they didn't take the body we still have multiple other ideas....
let me stop you right their 95% of the other "theories" (the wrong tomb the swoon theory the romans took the body the Jewish leaders took the body) still have the issue of the tomb actually being empty (again no one wanted Christianity to exist a fact many arm chair skeptics roll right over) let me put it to you in this sense Imagine if you will the following people on this forum have these roles
Wizard is the Ceaser of the Roman Empire
Lud is essentially King Heord (ruler of the Jewish province)
And Darth is Head of the Pharisees and law makers
now put their modern hatred toward Christianity but have it be in the 1st century and that is the opposition the Christians faced. let me emphasize this NO ONE WANTED CHRISTIANITY TO EXIST!!!!!!! do you hear me in the back of Darth Dimi's class I can not stress this enough there were cash rewards for people to expose Christians so they could be mocked and brutally tortured and executed.
so that destroys all theories except for one.....
Christ rose from the dead...
but Wiz will add "wait I know the resurrection stuff was likely added 100's of years later so nope that is what it is"
Hate to destroy that bubble but 1st Corinthians records an early Creed of the church that was passed down orally and in the creed is the resurrection also another thing Atheists ALWAYS SKIP OVER (In fact just once I would love to see an atheist comment on this) Paul an large portion of his letters points out (paraphrasing again) "Do not take my word on the events that have transpired in Jerusalem but go there and talk to those who have witness these miracles" people in Paul's own time had issues believing these fantastical events and Paul points out that there are people living that saw this.. Again with any claim or event eye witness testimony is CRUCIAL especially when discussing historical events (and I believe Scientific as don't things have to be Observable Darth)
Alo we have church letters from I believe 90-110 AD that quote large portions of each of the four gospels as well as the Letters of Paul so even if all we had to construct the bible was early letters between church fathers we would easily have the full new testament minus a few passages (but nothing earth shattering I hate to say) as Uninteresting as it sounds there is no Gap between the events of Christ's life and the time he was worshiped as a god..
but Wiz counters (hate to use you but since I know you will be mocking me seconds after I post this rather then giving anything thoughtful or interesting me in public private even with my opening paragraph of how tempting living for self pleasure is) wait the whole thing is made up yeah there might of been a Jesus of Nazareth but all the events of his life were likely fabricated...
Again there is no gap sure the gospels and letters of Paul were written 30 years after his resurrection but even if we look at those 30 years we have found the following from those 30 years
Churches and buildings dedicated to worshiping Christ in secret
Historical accounts and record from Roman officials about killing Christians
And we still have the oral account painstakingly recorded in 1st Corinthians and all 4 gospels can be traced to someone who knew Jesus and would know if there were lies in the books and when they were first being distributed as Paul points out the people who witnessed these events were STILL ALIVE don't you think if it was all lies someone would of said something?
And so I feel I have Bared enough of my soul so lets go back to the beginning Jesus died for my sins and knows me personally do I know why my dad died as a kid... no I don't or why my Neice was a still birth in spite of all the prayers... nope or why I am wired the way I am which nearly cost me my marriage... again I couldn't tell you. but the son of god exists and there is no way around it again as someone who would love to be an Atheist and that the idea of Self pleasure and as long as no one gets hurt it's "ok" man does that sound attractive but it's not accurate and there is no way around the empty tomb.
Wiz and others have choosen to Ignore it and that is fine they will live their lives mocking Christianity every chance they can they will one day be proven wrong and sadly it will be too late and as for me Well I will live my life I will see the angry and despicable mocary posts from Wiz and Lud (again winning people by mocking them has never worked) Darth may send me a Pm saying something along the lines of "You seem like a decent guy I wish you could just come over to my side of the fence" or he may not Dragon will likely be shocked and may be pissed at me for saying how attractive atheism is then again maybe he will reach out to me and say I am sorry for your losses in the past... again I don't know
I may post again I may not I may just go back to random youtube vids that prove my point but Lud you asked me why I believe and there it is...
as for Islam Muhammed doesn't seem to have any miracles attributed to him (not to the level of Jesus) he seems to be just another in a long line of fanatical people who bought into their own Koolaid the difference with Jesus is again rising from the dead.. and that is why I'm a Christian for 2000 years everyone has tried their best to explain the empty tomb as best they can and no theory works out there is either logical flaws or it goes against Occum's Razor. Either way the Tomb is empty you can let it change your life or you can ignore it the choice is yours.
And Wizard will now make fun of me my dead father and neice in 3... 2... 1...
It also seems there's a lot of rehash in your post but let's read it shall we.
There's a huge difference between religion (as a belief system) and atheism. If atheism were a belief system too, then "not playing tennis" would make me a sportsman and "not collecting action figures" would be my hobby.
Atheism means but one thing, really: not believe in a god. Religion, unfortunately, has many definitions, long and unclear ones, comprising many characteristics which many but not all religious people display. That said, atheists aren't necessarily people who choose to 'believe' in nothing. Some atheists -- people who don't believe in a god -- believe that man was put on Earth by aliens; some believe in reincarnation and some believe that nothing is real. Perhaps we can assert that it's less likely to find an atheist who reaches out to these rather outrageous cases of untested and highly improbable ideas, but the chances are far from nil. So in that sense, some atheists believe in "something" otherworldly, many don't, but none of us believes in a god. That is, essentially, the only thing that binds us.
I consider myself a very "non-believing" atheist; or, as @Risico007 might correctly phrase it, a materialist. Lest we commit an "equivocation fallacy", allow me to specify that I can still believe in certain things, like peace, a woman's abortion rights and democracy. Or, as the word was used in Casino Royale,
"Do you believe in God, Mr Le Chiffre?"
"No. I believe in a reasonable rate of return."
Both times, the word "believe" has a different meaning. The first "believe" implies that you are willing to cling to an untested, improbable and vague notion without any proof available to you. The second "believe" implies that you are willing to support a social, political, legal, economic, ... construct which we, either individually or as a society, have total control over.
In summary, it's wrong to call "atheism" a belief in the same sense that religion is a belief. Atheist don't believe in a god, ergo they don't believe in the religious sense. It's a non-belief, rather than a belief. Furthermore, atheists can still believe in other things (reincarnation, conspiracy theories, ...). Just not in god. Even those atheists who, like myself, demand hard proof before any untested and highly unlikely notion is willingly adopted, can still believe in certain things, like peace and education for all children around the world.
This I can agree with, especially because you use the word "attempt" instead of making a claim that only religion can achieve those things.
I'm afraid I disagree. On the one hand, you criticise the mocking of a book which you implicitly degrade to a weak and perhaps totally non-essential element of religion; on the other hand, you still attach some value to it, explicitly stating even that its themes might not be irrelevant after all.
Even then, I think that what you're trying to say is that books like the Bible could be of use to religious people and harmless to us all if properly read and not misread as, indeed, fairy tales. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) However, time and again, we have, in this thread, tried to demonstrate that the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, ... are still being taken as literal guidelines by -- alas -- many religious people. Objectively speaking, these books contain multiple examples of practices which most constitutions in the world have several laws against but to which their readers are encouraged to commit. And take it from someone who has to deal with this professionally every day of the week: there are still quite a few people among us who justify their words, their actions and those of terrorists by literally quoting from one of these books.
If I'm allowed to make the false juxtaposition of a science book next to the Quran for example, I would like to know how many people have killed innocent bystanders while shouting phrases from a chapter devoted to electromagnetism or acid base reactions.
The inability of science to give you those answers today doesn't mean that
- it won't be able to give them someday;
- looking for a reasonable answer in highly unlikely places is a bonafide alternative.
Your comment about the "infinitely dense ball of stuff" is furthermore flawed. The big bang demands no creator, which is the big deal. Science refutes intelligent design because science can find absolutely no good reason why a designer or creator ought to be introduced in its explanation of the universe. The notion was thoroughly researched in the past but swiftly abandoned because it took us nowhere. The scientists who never felt the need to invoke a higher power started piling up victory after victory, success after success. That still doesn't disprove god in any way, I agree, but we should at least bare in mind that the methodological and logical differences between the Big Bang theory and intelligent design are paramount.
Again, not knowing something doesn't mean that invoking deities or, worse still, worshipping them and committing atrocities in their name, is fair practice. It is a clumsy, somewhat lazy and above all dangerous thing to do. We cannot deny that people are willing to die for their god, that strict and harsh, cruel cultural rules are maintained in the name of some god. A creator, unfortunately, is often much more than simply a way to sleep tight at night, knowing there's a perfectly sound explanation for the universe.
I'm not sure what to make of that "80-some percent" phrase. Are you saying that 80% of the people on Earth formulate their assumptions based on holy scripture?
"So regardless of what others believe, just remember, yours is no different." Again, it very much is. A) I have no belief in the same sense the religious have. B) My materialism (going by @Risico007 's definition) is antithetical to how the religious think and reason.
Example: When I'm ill, I won't pray. I simply know prayer won't cure me. I only know that there's a small statistical probability that I might then get better simply through spontaneous healing or that some psychosomatic effects may accelerate the healing process if I could genuinely believe in prayer (which I can't.) I will, however, seek proper medication, if available, because there's a much higher probability the medication was tested and has been proven to work. So not only is my "belief" different, it's also non-existing. I don't believe in the healing power of prayer or medication. I know that prayer won't heal me and I know that medication has a statistical chance of making me better. Believe isn't a part of any of this for me.
I fully agree, @JamesStock. None of us get to be the jury. But that comes with a cost. I won't be the jury as long as
- the religious don't try to shove their religion in my face;
- the religious don't turn away from empirical observations, while evidence is staring them in the face, because they contradict their faith;
- no illegal activities are performed either inside or outside the religious' households in the name of their religion;
- religion doesn't interfere with the education of our youngsters at school.
But as long as the religious judge me for refuting god, for tolerating homosexuality, abortion and euthanasia in this society, for teaching verified scientific models which unfortunately contradict much of what is written in the Bible, the Quran, ... , I can't be blamed for defending myself and for trying to demonstrate, hopefully with patience and in a rational way, why I am convinced that religion is still corssing too many lines to be welcomed into our society.
Neither is the cruelty of this world any relevant to the question of God's existence. It challenges claims of a benevolent God or his intelligence iif there was to be one but you first need to demonstrate this hypothetical God.
I think you need to do more work if you want your Nobel Prize. Or if you want not to flunk your history degree.
Well not quite the smoking gun we were promised more of a greatest hits package of your last few months. Still my hopes weren't exactly stratospheric.
To use your own line 'I don't have much time' so hopefully I'll come back to dissecting this in greater detail at a later date but a few observations:
Firstly you do not have a monopoly on bereavement so you can rein that schtick in right now. It has no bearing on the arguments either way. Painting yourself as a victim being harangued by all of us heartless atheists is a tactic Dragonpol has already tried when he had nothing in his locker and it is a very transparent deflection tactic.
Secondly punctuation is so overrated isn't it?
Thirdly you seem rather more obsessed with Luds, Darth and certainly myself than is healthy. There's no need to take it all so personally old son - it's your arguments we are ridiculing not you and whatever misfortune has befallen you in life.
Anyway - so from your initial paragraph (I use that word loosely obviously as you should be facing charges in The Hague for crimes against grammar) you state that atheism has a lot going for it due to the fact that God is a heartless being - which is what we've been saying all along by the way. But you have no choice but to believe because the evidence is so compelling.
So I will ask the question we've asked thousands of times before: why is God worthy of your respect and worship?
OK you've convinced yourself through various youtube videos and the 100% reliable testimony of a handful of his followers scrawled down on some parchment from second hand accounts decades after the event that Jesus rose from the dead. Fair enough, let's not bat that back and forth again for hours as we won't agree on what constitutes evidence (although for the record are you saying that if you could be convinced of another reason for the tomb to be empty you would cease believing and happily join us?) and it won't get us anywhere.
So just because of the 'proof' via the empty tomb and the witness 'testimony' you have no choice but to believe. Fine but why does that change anything about God being a heartless baby murderer (particularly pertinent in your own personal example about your niece)? Just because he actually exists (in your mind) that doesn't make him any less malevolent does it?
By that rationale if I could prove to you that Hitler was actually God (and to be fair even his body count pales in comparison to God's relentless slaughter) would you get down on your knees and worship him every sunday?
Are you only believing in Him merely out of fear and what he might do next? Or are you going to hide behind the old 'We puny beings can't fathom His masterplan and He does it all for a reason' chestnut?
In that case shouldn't you actually be celebrating bereavements instead of mourning as it is all part of the advancement of God's cunning plan isn't it? (As an aside does anyone know if the jazz funeral 'celebrations' as seen in LALD are done because they are happy that their loved one is going to join God as part of the supreme being's grand strategy? Naturally they conveniently forget them being wracked with agony from cancer for months before they went but He does move in mysterious ways.)
Believing in him or not he's still an egotistical mentalist either way and even if I KNEW it was all true like you do I'd still have to ask myself serious questions about devoting my life to worshipping a psychopath. Does that not bother you in the slightest?
My father did die when I was a child but I believe he is my guardian angel (and the term Rest In Peace does not apply to him as I have had enough accidents in life that I should of been dead 10 times over)
Plus my step father is a wonderful man and my step brother is well my blood brother in my mind
As for my neice it brought my brother in law ironically closer to God
So with all that is said there are silver linings
As for why worship God I find the ego of the atheist truely a marvel if God came down tomorrow instead of worshiping or at the very least asking him you want to find a way to destroy God... good luck with that
And even your own groundless claims contradict your initial ones. Why would God need guardian angels and what have you if he's all powerful? And do a dickery like letting an unborn baby die? He could be a sloppy god of course... when your average maternity ward can correct his divine design, your god is an irrelevance even if he exists: neither needed nor helpful.
You don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Ra, ... What if one of them came down tomorrow? Where would that put you?
Show me historical evidence for any of them
In fact let’s have some fun Wiz yes I would convert to atheism if any of you can come up with a plausible theory to debunk the empty tomb and heck I will through 100 dollars US
So come on get to work let’s see some theories
And please don't conjure up another series of interpretations of Biblical texts that should somehow prove the existence of God. Understand that I will never accept them. The Bible was written by men. It's a collection of stories. There's no physical proof that anything in these stories ever happened for a fact. Circumstances, the choice of characters etc. in these stories will never convince us. If you could legitimately show historical evidence for God, journalists, scientists, historians, ... would be all over it. We'd teach about it in schools. Books would be rewritten. But nothing's happened so far. Instead, most scientists keep operating from a non-deist focus point. Ergo, whatever it is you call substantial evidence, seems to find no supporters in the court of common sense.
And so, since you can't show historical evidence for your god either, Zeus and Thor and Ra and so on are no less legitimate as made-up gods than yours.
Furthermore, do you believe in Allah and Muhammed? Because Muslims would turn the table on you and call you out. If Allah came down from the mountain tomorrow, then what? That leaves us with only one conclusion: you are arrogant enough to think that your god is the only true one and they are arrogant enough to think the same about their god. But it remains a belief, not a fact.
Off topic, I would like to say, @Risico007, that if you allow God or Jesus in your heart because they make you a better man, I have no problems whatsoever with that. You have clearly thought about it and it means a lot to you. I'm perfectly fine with that. You can convince me of the reality of the warmth your belief in God brings you. Alas, you will never convince me of the reality of God.
So consider this
God comes to your class tomorrow would you consider yourself a credible eye witness