To a degree. If one reads the exchanges you can see that they rebuked him for calling God his father. They rebuked him for declaring that he - Jesus “was God”, they rebuked him for stating that people can be God even when he quoted this phrase form the scrolls that the were used in the temple.
They rebuked him for implying that people did not need Pharisees or organized theology in order to understand and receive blessings from God.
I know of nothing in history prior to Jesus that contains any trace of “I an the father are one”.
The only claim you can infer from atheism is that they lack theistic belief, all lese is unevidenced assumption until an individual atheist makes another claim.
Use as many tautologies as you like, atheism is still not a claim, nor is it a belief.
Not remotely true, I was born an atheist, and theists have failed to offer sufficient or compelling reason to change that, so I remain unconvinced. Also I need a reason to believe something, whereas I have no choice but to start with a lack of belief, as must we all, since beliefs are learned.
Atheism is not an assertion, it’s disbelieving one.
Maybe “scientific training” doesn’t include using Google to search word definitions? Or about common usage and how this is used to compile definitions in dictionaries?
Congrats, change your profile please.
Atheism isn’t a belief. it is the lack or absence of one.
SUFFICIENT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE!!!
Sigh…
Do you generally believe claims when you can’t imagine what would convince you? You’re getting funnier and funnier, and I have heard this idiotic nonsense for decades.
I’d take that up with whoever was teaching you Physics mate.
Circular reasoning fallacy, sigh. Scientific laws are descriptive not prescriptive. What you’re repeatedly claiming is we don’t know what was present before X, so explanations of what we see after X can’t have come from that without inexplicable magic from an unevidenced deity, derived from an archaic superstition. I remain dubious, and your spiel remains unconvincing.
It’s a made up word for people who prefer superstition over objective evidence, because they now they have none of the latter for beliefs they are indoctrinated in.
Allegedly said, it’s anonymous hearsay written decades after the fact, remember?
Not really, and again it is allegedly said.
Again this might all have been fabricated after the fact to create the legend, and I’m not sure it was that bizarre, the golden rule predate Jesus by centuries, Buddha certainly espoused a version of it.
Oh, an argument from personal incredulity fallacy, you don’t see many of these, well done.
Didn’t they (Hebrews) have a long standing belief a messiah was coming? Note the gospels tortured attempts to draw a lineage from Jesus to King David, a pretty transparent attempt to “fulfil” that prophesy.
Being cryptic and vague is pretty commonplace among superstitions in my experience, it probably helps not to get too specific when you’re making stuff up.
Hmmm I can’t say I disagree, and I appreciate the distinction. Unfortunately most theists have processed the data in questionable ways to conclude that it comprises “evidence”.
I don’t consider nonsense to be evidence, but since others do, not recognizing this may be counterproductive. Thanks
Moreover, the idea of “Creator God” is child’s play.
How can a being with an infinite past and an infinite future set out a “beginning” to anything?
This automatically places his infinite temporality into a position of “something”.
More over, if you can establish a principle for “God has always existed” - why does it need to be spiritual? What is it? Define it? And if you find such a principle, why can’t that apply to the Universe?
Ie. who created the universe? God! Who created God?
Questions that a four year old would ask. Answers that don’t exist. And notions that get discarded.
For the record, I would like to note our dearly beloved Sherlock has yet to address any of the comments/questions I have directed toward him. And this is MY FUCKING THREAD. It’s almost as if Sherlock does not like me. I feel so empty now. As if I am not worthy of his love and attention. Now I must retreat for a moment and reevaluate the purpose of my life. Woe is me!
It doesn’t really make much rational sense either, in order for something to “begin” as we understand the word, time would have to exist, and the temporal condition we perceive is a characteristic of the physical universe.
Yes it is a hypotheses and a reasonable hypothesis, masses of observational evidence is consistent with it, its termed the “Big Bang hypothesis” in cosmology.
Furthermore no scientific proposition about nature can ever be described as a fact. Science is rooted in assumptions (axioms) and inductive reasoning (extrapolations).
Axioms are not facts, so your criticism of “the universe had a beginning” can be levelled at literally every proposition about the natural world, try it for yourself, share with us all, a proposition about the natural world that you regard as a fact.
Nope, some do, but this need not be the case. I was born an atheist, no choices were involved. Or hypothetically if someone had never encountered the concept of a deity, they would be an atheist, and without making any decision.
Well of course that is possible, I feel like I’m trying to train the cat to service my car…
Nope, there is currently no scientific evidence for anything prior to the big bang, and time as we perceive it is a condition of the temporal physical universe.
Hahahhahahahahhahahahahha, what utter bollocks. Scientifically trained and you seriously believe nothing is known to be true via the scientific method.
Are you claiming they are mutually exclusive? Seriously? Do please read a dictionary.
Now I must retreat for a moment and reevaluate the purpose of my life. Woe is me! 
. I can’t speak for others, just myself.