Proof that Jesus Christ never existed!!! Christians read!

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Proof that Jesus Christ never existed!!! Christians read!

It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed.

I hope you too are able to find this truth.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
OK. As that no "proof" was

OK. As that no "proof" was posted by Sapient, I can only assume that this thread is a satire on the arbitrariness of Christian Inspiration. Am I correct?

If this is the case, it isn't worth my effort to refute it. The refutation is complex. Besides, chances are that if the receiver is willing to satirize the opposition, he's not very "open minded."

I'll admit that I'm pretty closed-minded. The problem I have is that I can very clearly tell that you (plural) aren't either, but often assert otherwise.

PS: We both believe that our own particular visions of the future (religion destroyed for you, and a universal understanding of God for me) is inevitable. We don't need to resort to satirizing our opposition. All we need do is wait and see who's correct.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

OK. As that no "proof" was posted by Sapient, I can only assume that this thread is a satire on the arbitrariness of Christian Inspiration. Am I correct?

If this is the case, it isn't worth my effort to refute it. The refutation is complex. Besides, chances are that if the receiver is willing to satirize the opposition, he's not very "open minded."

I'll admit that I'm pretty closed-minded. The problem I have is that I can very clearly tell that you (plural) aren't either, but often assert otherwise.

PS: We both believe that our own particular visions of the future (religion destroyed for you, and a universal understanding of God for me) is inevitable. We don't need to resort to satirizing our opposition. All we need do is wait and see who's correct.

Is this satire as well?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1210
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Satire?

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

OK. As that no "proof" was posted by Sapient, I can only assume that this thread is a satire on the arbitrariness of Christian Inspiration. Am I correct?

It is very disrespectful for you to refer to our faith in jesus' non-existence as satire. 

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
If this is the case, it isn't worth my effort to refute it.

Of course not.  Because revealed truth is irrefutable.

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:

I'll admit that I'm pretty closed-minded. The problem I have is that I can very clearly tell that you (plural) aren't either, but often assert otherwise.

It is because we are so open-minded that we don't believe in jesus.  I accepted jesus' nonexistence on faith alone, knowing that understanding would come with time.

Have you ever asked yourself:  What if you're wrong?

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
All we need do is wait and see who's correct.

Why should I wait, when the truth has already been revealed to me?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
^ That isn't satire. That's

^ That isn't satire. That's sarcasm. Satire is when you are parodying something, sarcasm is when you say one thing and mean the opposite.

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2375
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valient

   Dear Sir Valient, I know Jesus did not exist because my lord Sapient hath told me thus.  And mine lord of lords Sapient the first hath never misledith me.  Why doth thou question this being?  Sapient hath spoken-ith.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Alex the Greek (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Truth

In all of history, the men who achieved most were those who could see and feel the untangible; the argument here is simply faith against the lack thereof. No amount of facts pushing either way will sway anyone's mind. If you really want to know all you need to do is ask God Himself.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kayla wrote:in all there are

Kayla wrote:

in all there are 5,366 different copies of the Bible. & it is 99% accurate to the original!!!!!

we know this because just like in the "Illiad" we can line all the books up and they match all except 1%

This adds up to about 40 lines in the books & none of these lines had anything to do with any miracles, or prophacies made.

 

SO...this proves that the Bible isn't just some big fish story that someone just cooked up & it got bigger and bigger as time went by....

Actually, that's not even close to true. The KJV on its own has a number of translation errors, and more, inserted passages that don't exist in earlier forms. When adding newer bibles to the mix, the differences grow. When adding older bibles to the mix, it changes even more... and that's just the 'canon' New Testament of the Roman Catholic Church. The other Apostolic Thrones have, in some cases (Alexandria/the Coptic church, f'rex) developed their own list of canon 'books'.

Quote:

NOW...to prove that he actually existed....


                                               -Cornelius Tacitus "Annals"

 Except, of course, that 'Christus' isn't just 'another spelling for Christ', it's the latinized version of 'Christos', the greek term Paul first used for Jesus. Given that Paul made up 'Christ Jesus' for Jeshua ben Joseph, in addition to making up whole cloth all of the theology he preached and pushed in his epistles, it's not at all surprising that Tacitus, writing close to 80 years after the event in question, and forty years after the death of Paul, would use the terminology Paul popularized. Accepting Paul's bullshit long after the fact doesn't give him any credibility as an independant source.  
Quote:
                                                            -Flavius Josephus "Antiquities"
 A) 66 AD is a full generation after the date of the events in question.B) The existence of James the Just, head of the Jersalem church, is not in question, merely the existence of the man he claimed his brother Jeshua to have been. (That James may have had a brother Jeshua who was an itinerant rabbi, however, remains a significant probability, even if he did not have nearly the incredible life the gospels accord to him.)C)The authenticity of the quote from Josephus is highly questionable. For example, the Testimonium Flavianum says (as you've quoted here), "He was the Christ", which can only be a direct declaration of faith, with the same being said of 'he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had fortold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him'. Josephus, however, was not a Christian, and so neither have asserted the claim that Jeshua was 'the Christ', nor that he rose from the dead in accordance with prophecy. Also, the [i[Antiquities of the Jews[/i] (the actual title, and not simply "Antiquities&quotEye-wink, as it existed in 240 AD, seems not to have included this passage, as Origen, an early Christian author, cites the later mention in the volume of James the Just, but not the Testimonium.  
Quote:
Mara Bar-Serapion [...] & both Thullus & Phlegon
 

Actually, in his letter he refers to the execution of 'their wise king', and never actually names Jesus. Moreover, he's writing around 70-75 AD, by which point Barnabas, Paul, and Timothy have already established communities throughout asia minor and into Syria. It's not unreasonable to believe that word of mouth has been getting around. As with Tacitus, the simple fact that he'd heard Paul's line of bull doesn't make him a reliable independent source.

Thallus, for the record, also cannot be relied upon, because we do not have his citation to judge. What we have is George Syncellus, a 9th century author, citing Julius Africanus's statement that "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the Sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me." For all we know, Thallus, in turn, may have been saying 'The Christians claim the sun went dark, but that's just because they're mixing up their fairy tale with the eclipse five years earlier. You know how those cults get.'

Phlegon's in the same boat: we don't have his words to judge by, we have Eusebius of Caesarea referring to what he wrote as proof. The fact is, we don't know. We don't even know what he actually wrote. We only know what we're told he wrote.

We were also told that Saddam Hussein bought uranium from Niger, and that his aluminum tubes were centrifuge parts. And that we'd be greeted with flowers and hailed as liberators.

We have no primary sources. The sources we have are thus already influenced by, or in the case of Eusebius and Syncellus, actively seeking to reinforce, the account that is being questioned. All must thus be discarded.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
1)Evolution doesn't require

1)Evolution doesn't require the creation or destruction of energy. The energy required for the processes is prexisting, be it in the form of geothermal power, or solar power generated through hydrogen fusion.

2)Evolution doesn't violate the second law, either, as what you see as 'more orderly' systems, the rest of us understand to be more wasteful, inefficient cascades of chemical reactions, resulting in more waste heat vs usable chemical processes.

3)Evolution doesn't address how life began. Thus, it cannot violate the theory of biogenesis. For that, you'd need the theory of abiogenesis.

4)Actually, it might be more accurate to say there is nothing that is not a transitional form. Achaeopteryx may indeed be a 'true bird', but it is also obviously a bird in a far earlier state than those we see today. The feathered skin impressions being found on various types of raptor-family fossils in China bear out the suspicions of direct relationships between Dinosauria and Aves (and one which is already tacitly recognized by the inclusion of Aves in the infraclass Archosaur, which includes Dinosauria and Crocodilia). Also visible as a 'transition form' may be Epidendrosaurus.

5)As the theists are so fond of pointing out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Fossils aren't common things. We have no idea how many species we may never know about. Would that the world were lucky enough that we'd been one of them.

5b)Neanderthal man is not Homo Sapiens in the sense of 'modern man'. That's Cro-Magnon. Neanderthal is Homo Neanderthalensis or rarely, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, though mitochondrial and morphological studies indicate that indeed, Neanderthalensis was not a subspecies of of Sapiens.

5c)Australopithecines such as Lucy may well have had similar body size, stature, and brain size to modern bonobos, but possessed significantly different pelvic and foot structures. Not the same critter. Sorry.

6)Nor does it seek to. See 3).

6b)Improbability is not impossibility. Nor can Hoyle and Wickramasinghe claim to know with utter certainty whether the assumptions upon which they base their projections are actually correct.

6c)As the requisite is 'an infinite number of monkeys', no finite amount of space, such as the universe, could possibly contain them all. Hoyle is indeed quite a wit, but Einstein thought his cosmological constant was a mistake, if you'll recall. Turns out "dark matter" and "dark energy" fit into that 'mistake' pretty well. Smart people aren't always right. The smartest among us are the ones willing to admit when we just don't know.

6d)Nonsense. It takes no more faith to believe any one thing over any other. Both, in order to be unassailable, require the same degree of faith: total. Anything less is self-defeating. That's why I prefer to embrace that I don't know, and can't know, with any degree of indubitable certainty. It leaves me free to explore all possibilities.

6e)Evolution is a theory with quite a lot of scientific evidence to back it up. Darwinian evolution certainly isn't perfect, but so far the evidence does bear out the general outlines; that changes in individuals, passed on to offspring, result in species differentiation.

6f)"Many were sacrificed to their ruthless utopian, amoral visions"... and how many were sacrificed to holy wars? How many continue to be sacrificed to holy wars? How many of those victims you lament in the concentration camps were there because of religious issues? Remember, the evil madman you claim to be influenced by evolution was far, far more influenced by the religious anti-semitism of folks like Martin Luther. And yes, an unborn fetus is an animal embryo. A born baby is an animal. You're an animal. I'm an animal. There is no 'right to life' save that we choose to hold ourselves to in our social contract. If you need proof, then just look at all the infants in the world who die of natural, if tragic, occurances. Look at all the mothers who try to do everything right, but still miscarry. Look at all of the fertilized eggs that get destroyed by fertility clinics. If the right to life were anything more than a conscious, human construct, those things wouldn't happen.

Naturalistically speaking, you do not have the right to life. You have the right to seek to preserve your life. To be a functioning member of society, you surrender many of the options you are naturally entitled to in exercising that right, and in exchange you gain the assurance of other members of your society that they will not seek to exercise those options on you. That's as far as a 'right to life' goes. If you want it to extend to the unborn, that's a lovely thought, but for my money, a fetus is a parasitic organism that is tolerated solely because of the biological drive to pass on our genes.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm only a beginner in

I'm only a beginner in understanding evolution,but I'll try answer.Since I doubt that all of isn't jut copy and pasted,I hope no one will mind if I do that.I have a basic understanding of most of the qustions,however I will just provide external answers for better clarity.Some answers are my own work,some are not.

Alex the Greek wrote:

 

That simpler life forms can become more complex life forms may be an appealing theory but it does not have a leg to stand on. The following are some major flaws in the theory of evolution:

Except for 150 years of scientific testing.

Alex the Greek wrote:
1. Belief in evolution violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy conservation, which states that energy can be converted from one form into another, but it can neither be created or destroyed. Nothing in the present economy of natural law can account for its own origin. The energy required for innovative evolution, a fish developing legs and crawling out of a primordial swamp, violates this inviolate law of physics. The present structure of the universe is one of conservation. The creationist model agrees with the Biblical world view that God created the universe. Since God has ceased from his creative works (Gen.2:3), energy is no longer created. The release of energy in an atomic fission reaction is not a creation of energy but a change of form from matter to energy.

  1. This is a Straw Man Argument insofar as it may be questioning the validity of the Big Bang. Big Bang Theory makes no claims about the ultimate nature of the origin of the universe. It only explains the changes in the universe that post-date an apparent singularity. Prior to that point, all scenarios are essentially speculative.
  2. For the actual origin of the universe, speculations and hypotheses of a time before (if the term before is even meaningful in this context) the Big Bang have been formulated that incorporate the principles of conservation. Conservation of energy doesn't always hold in the way laypeople understand them. In quantum systems energy obeys the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Energy dE can come out of existence for a period of time dt, where dE*dt >=h (the uncertainty principle). This is called a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. This phenomenon has been experimentally confirmed and is responsible for the black hole radiation. It is speculated that the net energy dE of the entire universe is very close to zero, and by applying the uncertainty principle, you come up with a very large dt (the existence time of the universe). In other words, the universe might be a quantum fluctuation and essentially came from nothing.
  3. Also, according to Noether's Theorem, conservation of energy is linked to and defined by the homogeneity of time. Since the Big Bang is a singularity where time is not necessarily homogeneous, energy is not necessarily conserved.
  4. "Something can't come from nothing" doesn't have an empirical basis, since we don't have any experience with literally nothing (meaning, not even time and space), and therefore don't know how it behaves. Our current physics describes what we observe within the universe: no one knows if it can be meaningfully applied to the universe itself. In fact, everything we know comes from observations and studies conducted within the known universe. Applying that knowledge to things outside of that context (for instance, applying them to the universe itself) is logically illegitimate.
  5. The overall energy content of the universe could well be zero, since the gravitational field of heavy bodies constitutes a negative energy contribution. (It is necessary to expend energy to, e.g. convert the earth into a homogeneous cloud of dust.) In this sense, the energy content of the universe is the same as the energy content of nothing. But with all the unknowns governing modern cosmology (dark matter, dark energy) and quantum physics (energy of vacuum fluctuations), nobody knows for certain.
  6. If this argument applied, it would apply to creationism to the same degree because creationism states "God created the world from nothing".
  7. Whether or not the universe came from nothing has no bearing whatsoever on the idea of descent with modification of organisms. Creationists have failed time and time again in their attempts to use this claim to disprove observed lineages of living and fossil organisms such as brontotheres, dogs, pigs, horses, orchids, corn, wheat, ferns and snails.

Alex the Greek wrote:
2. Belief in evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the law of energy decay. The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, even though the total energy remains constant. Structured systems progress from a more orderly, more complex, state to a less orderly, disorganized, and random state. This process is known as "entropy". Theoretically in a rare, limited, and temporary situation a more orderly state might result. But all systems move toward decay, according to this law. Evolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists are aware of this and therefore require billions of years of constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Not only is evolution statistically highly improbable but virtually impossible.

  1. True only in isolation. A steady source of organized solar energy and the nearly infinite repository of deep space (to dump waste heat energy to) makes self-organization on the earth's surface inevitable.
  2. When defining a thermodynamic "system" for purposes of calculating changes in entropy, you need to define it such that there are no external inputs (i.e., an isolated system). A life form is not an isolated system. Life takes in energy (food) in order to function & grow, whether it be an animal eating another animal or a plant utilizing sunlight. If you were to properly define the system, you would see that the apparent decrease in entropy of a particular lifeform is actually at the expense of creating more entropy elsewhere. When a creature becomes more organized (say, grows to adulthood) it does it by destroying other life. For the little energy plants capture from the sun, massive amounts of solar energy is lost to space. The net result is an overall increase in entropy for the system, in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
  3. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to physical events and chemical reactions. Evolution is neither of these things; it is a process undergone by populations of living organisms, such as bacteria, plants, and animals, as well as viruses. Evolution is the result of reproduction, which is itself contingent of biochemical reactions, some of which increase the entropy within an organism, and some which decrease entropy. However, reproduction is the same regardless of whether creation or evolution is true. Since the Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly does not forbid reproduction, sexual or otherwise, it follows that it cannot forbid evolution either.
  4. It should also be noted that a population of organisms does not constitute a thermodynamic system. Evolution has no more to do with thermodynamics than does writing a book, having sex, or debating creation vs evolution.
  5. How can the second law forbid evolution, but still allow reproduction? Reproduction produces a new copy of the organism - an ordered state.
  6. Take a fairly large amount of salt and add boiling water until it all dissolves. The salt is now in a highly disordered state. Let it sit in a warm place for a while, and order will spontaneously develop in the form of salt crystals. Is this a violation of the 2nd law? For that matter, does creation get around the interpretation of the law being claimed, since life still exists and reproduction happens. No. Entropy is not the same as disorder: It is the reduction in the ability to do further work. We consume food and give back wastes such as carbon dioxide. The food cannot do further work now. Plants use energy from the sun to make food for us, but the sun fuses atoms together to provide that energy, which then can't do more work. Entropy, properly understood, can allow increases in order.
  7. The smallest non-artificial thermodynamically closed system in the universe, is the universe itself. The 2nd law does not apply to mere subsets of it. Local entropy decrease does not contradict universal entropy increase.

If we take into account other forms of evolution like evolution of computers and technology they will also violate second law thermodynamics if creationists are right. Modern day computers are much developed than those of older days. Yet nobody says they were created in a day.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Premises: ‘The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium  will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.’ This is said to disprove evolution, because life can only move towards a state of disorder, not evolve to be more orderly as seen in evolution. A car left for a decade will turn to rust, not a better car.The only possible answer is a creator.

Problem: This law only applies in a closed system, which neither our solar system nor the universe is. This argument would be perfectly true is there wasn’t a massive source of energy near the earth, like say, the sun. Furthermore, by Christian reasoning no one could even grow or live very long, since everything heads towards entropy. Babies would die soon after birth, since the universe moves only towards chaos, disorder, and death right?

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
3. Evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis that life comes only from preexisting life and will only perpetuate its own kind. Belief in evolution is essentially a belief in "spontaneous generation" where in one scenario life appeared when lightning struck a primordial soup and somehow a living cell formed. Pasteur (1860), Spallanzani (1780), and Redi (1688) disproved that maggots can come from rotten meat, flies from banana peels, bees from dead calves (etc...). When the decaying matter was sealed off and presterilized no life arose as there was no biological contamination.

in 1668, physician and biologist Francesco Redi decided to consider the question of rotting meat, which seemingly produces maggots, which ultimately become flies. But he noticed that rotting meat also attracts flies, so could those maggots be produced by those flies? He performed some classic experiments, exposing some rotting meat to air, while keeping flies away from some of it with gauze. Only the fly-accessible meat acquired maggots.

But spontaneous generation died a very slow death; it was reinforced by the discovery of numerous microscopic "animalcules", which often seemed to be spontaneously generated. But Redi-style experiments showed that even microorganisms are not spontaneously generated; the deathblow was delivered by Louis Pasteur's 1859 experiments with meat broth.

Some creationists wave around Pasteur's experiments as if they are some sort of absolute demostration, but that is not the case. He only showed that abiogenesis does not take place in certain commonplace circumstances.

However, traditional spontaneous generation has been revived by Dr. Periannan Senapathy, who expounds this view in his book Independent Birth of Organisms. Its cover features an illustration of his theory: a crab, a frog, a turtle, a butterfly, and an earthworm crawling out of a DNA-infused pond. But this is considered pseudo-science.

This is actually a moot point as biogenesis and evolution are completly different fields.Evolution does NOT concern itself with how life began, only how it evolved from there.

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
4. There is no evidence in the fossil record to substantiate evolution. According to the general theory of evolution the basic progression of life culminating in man was nonliving matter, to protozoans, to metazoan invertebrates, to vertebrate fishes, to amphibians, reptiles,birds, fur-bearing quadrupeds, apes and man. If the theory of evolution were accurate we would expect to find vast numbers of transitional forms objectively preserved in the fossil record. Transitional forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Archaeopteryx was once believed to be a transitional form but has since been acknowledged by paleontologists to have been a true bird. Evolutionists, cognizant of this glaring flaw in their belief system, now argue that fossils are not present because there were brief "evolutionary bursts" over billions of years which, because of their rapidity and brevity, did not leave their footprint in time. Nevertheless, a belief in "evolutionary bursts" is still unsupported by the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Biogenesis.

Since those three laws have been shown to not violate evolution,this is a moot point. If I remember right,every fossil is a transitional fossil.

Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps

  1. Those Creationists who make this claim are painfully ignorant of the fact that Stephen Gould formulated his theory after careful observation of both numerous fossil specimens and living populations of animals.
  2. Stephen J. Gould was not the only, or even first scientist to propose this idea. During the 1920's, the Jewish-German scientist Rudolph Kaufmann formulated a hypothesis very similiar to Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium based on observations of subtle differences between trilobite specimens from different strata. However, Professor Kaufmann was unable to continue work on his studies when he was fired from his University position at the behest of the Nazi Government.

Alex the Greek wrote:
5. The fossil record has failed to document a single, verifiable "missing link" between ape and man. Compilations on skimpy and inaccurate evidence, highly speculative constructs, and artists renderings abound but there is no scientific evidence documenting a missing link. "Positive finds" of a missing link are periodically announced only to be subsequently embroiled in controversy, revised, or disavowed. Nebraska man was constructed based on the discovery in 1922 of a single tooth which was that of an extinct species of pig.

All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape

  1. The Comparison of all skulls page in the talk.origins archive provides graphic evidence that this particular Creationist assertion simply is not supported by the evidence.
  2. Technically speaking, all species of hominids are apes. In fact, the term "hominid" refers to a kind of ape (i.e., apes that are in the lineage of humans). To say that hominid fossils are either human OR ape would be akin to saying that chihuahuas are either a breed of dog, or a breed of toy dog.Fake Fossils

Some Fossils Are Fake

Nebraska Man

Mistake. The original Nebraska Man specimen, a tooth probably belonging to an extinct peccary, was discovered in 1917, and even named Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. In 1922, this tooth was misidentified as belonging to a species of anthropoid ape; in 1927, this error was corrected. This misidentification came about because pigs and peccaries have cheek teeth that look very similar to those in humans. Creationists have asserted that Nebraska Man was cited as evidence for evolution in the Scopes trial; this is flatly wrong, inasmuch as no scientific evidence whatsoever was cited in that trial. Likewise, Creationists also assert that scientists covered up the mistake, which ignores the fact that the Nebraska Man recantation made the front page of the New York Times.

Misidentifications do happen. Other notable examples: Basilosaurus, first thought to be a marine reptile, but then shown to be an early cetacean. A ring-shaped creature, Peytoia, turned out to be the mouth of Anomalocaris -- and what was first thought to be the bulk of the animal turned out to be its front appendages. The worm Hallucigenia was first reconstructed as walking on some long spines and having mysterious upward tubes; turning it upside-down yielded a more reasonable reconstruction: an animal that walks with stubby legs and protects itself with upward-pointing spines. Such misidentifications are not, in and of themselves, particularly harmful to the scientists who make them, nor yet to science in general; it's only when a scientist clings to an error long past the time it has been demonstrated to be such, that any harm is done. In this context, it is instructive to compare the scientific community's treatment of Piltdown and Nebraska Man (each of which was discarded soon after the evidence refuted the notion that it could be a hominid ancestor) to the Creationist community's treatment of pretty much any of Creationism's numerous demonstrated errors (all of which are still in circulation -- including the ones on Answers In Genesis' "do not use" list).

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
In 1912 Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilologist produced some bones, teeth and primitive instruments which he supposedly found in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. In October of 1956 Reader’s Digest published an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthly , titled "The Great Piltdown Hoax." A new fluoride absorption method to date bones revealed the Piltdown bones were fraudulent. The teeth had been filed and both teeth and bones had been discolored with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity. All the "experts" had been deceived for over forty years.

Hoax. First specimens announced to public in 1912; Piltdown's fraudulent nature established by scientific examination in 1953-4. As of this writing, the identity and motives of the hoaxer are still unknown.

Piltdown Man, Eoanthropus dawsoni, was a supposed creature with a human-like cranium and an ape-like jawbone (mandible). When it was first "discovered", only British paleoanthropologists like Sir Arthur Keith took it seriously; most others tended to dismiss it as an accidental composite.

But the discovery of Piltdown II in 1917 was seeming evidence of reality; do accidental associations easily repeat themselves?

However, in 1924, Raymond Dart discovered the Taung Child (Australopithecus africanus) in southern Africa -- and it was the opposite of Piltdown Man: an apish skull with some adaptation for the human feature of walking upright. And as "real" early hominids were discovered, they fit into the Taung paradigm rather than the Piltdown one. As the number of Taung-style fossils increased, the Piltdown fossils got relegated to some obscure side branch.

The fossils were seldom considered to be potential forgeries until a 1953 conference of paleontologists, where Dr. J.S. Weiner brought up the possibility. Several of them then took a close look, and easily found signs of fakery -- something nobody had ever thought of doing before. But this was, in its own way, a vindication of the composite theory -- the Piltdown fakers had created composites from some human crania and orangutan jawbones, staining them and filing them to give them a more appropriate appearance.

The whodunit question has been much argued, with numerous suspects being proposed. One very interesting candidate suspect is paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who made only some enigmatic comments about those "fossils" over his whole career, like a comment that some feature was present "as if on purpose" (comme par exprès).

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
Henry Morris in his well written book Creation And The Modern Christian (Master Book Publishers, El Cajon, California, 1985) points out:

"If evolution were true, then the various stages of human evolution ought to be the best documented of all, since man is supposedly the most recent evolutionary arrival and since more people are searching for fossil evidence in this field than in any other. Nevertheless, as noted above, the actual evidence is still extremely fragmentary and very doubtful. Exactly which hominid fossils might be ancestors of man, as well as when and in what order, are still matters of heated dispute even among evolutionary anthropologists."

He points out that the long-sought common ancestor of man and the apes, especially of the "australopithecines" including the famous "Lucy", now seems to have turned up still living in the form of the pygmy chimpanzee known as the "bonobo." The "bonobo" is an inhabitant of the Zaire jungles and is "almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size" to Lucy, supposedly the oldest fossil hominid ( Science News , February 5, 1983, p.89).

From what I have learned,it is rare for fossils to form. One can not expect perfect fossil records.I think you will find there have been hominin fossils of many kinds.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm

 

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
6. Evolution fails to explain the existence of even a "simple cell." The simplest single cell organisms have in their genes and chromosomes as much data as there are letters in the world’s largest libraries - a trillion letters. There are hundred of thousands of genes in each cell. Most life forms have billions of such complex cells in perfect order. There is no way that random processes can organize such massive data. The mathematical possibility of a human body being formed accidentally is the same as that of an explosion in a print shop forming a dictionary.

Watchmaker Argument

Premises: If you were walking along and found a watch, you would note it’s complexity and conclude someone had designed it. It is the same with the natural world. Everything needs a creator.

 

Problem: Watches are designed. We know this because we can go to the watch factory and talk to the designer, and see the plans and processed for it. I’ve yet to see anyone do this with the universes’ supposed creator. Watches are non-organic things, and therefore couldn’t naturally evolve. Of course you wouldn’t think it just grew there. You might with a plant though. It is interesting to note that while this is n argument against evolution, watches evolve in their own way. The complex digital watch you found started as a simple sundial. In using this argument, the creationist must give credence to evolution.

 

This boils down to everything created needs a creator. The thing here is, who created god?

If nothing, then everything, including the world, does not need a creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

If something, then god is not the universe’s creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

 

Argument from fine tuning/Improbability

Premises: The earth is just right for life. A bit more that way, it would too cold. A bit, more that way, too hot. It has just the right kind of atmosphere,  nice solar system with a asteroid belt that protects us from errant meteors that could hit the earth, etc. Or just look at us. See how complex the eye is. That couldn’t have just happened.

 

Problem: So the earth is just right for life and life happens to exist there? Didn’t see that coming! This doesn’t seem as amazing when you realize there are billions of planets, around billions of stars. Given the astronomical numbers worked with here, it isn’t that unlikely one would  have the right conditions for life to appear. In fact, the universe speaks against intelligent design. So many galaxies and dead planets, so one can have life? It resembles far more the result one would get from an event such as the Big Bang.

The earth itself does not seem so intelligently designed. 70% of it is water, not much good for us non-gilled humans. Of the remaining land, much is in-hospitable dessert or ice land.  Why would god give us one planet in the whole universe and make most of it useless?

 

It is the same if we look at the eye. Yes, it is very unlikely it just appeared. Remember to factor in  few million years though, and it’s not so unbelievable that it manage to work it’s way here. If it was intelligently designed, why do so many people need glasses, and why are eyes so sensitive and easy to injure?

 You say it is so improbable for us to exist that god mut have done us. Why is it you cannot grasp the chance of life arising by itself, but you jump at god as the answer. You don't seem to realsie-if the chance of life on earth is improbable, the chance of a being so advanced it could create it is far more improbable! You are taking the more comples route,and then accusing us of unnecsarily complicating matters. God is the ultimate print shop explosion,Boeing 747, or whatever. Anything is more likely that a being of infinte power existing that happened to create everything.

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
Sir Fred Hoyle, the originator of the "steady-state" theory of the origin of the universe and an atheist, feels that the odds against the chance formation of life on earth are so small that it can be compared to the chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard would assembly a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" ("Hoyle on Evolution," Nature , Vol. 294, Nov. 12, 1981, p.105). Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, a mathematical astronomer, calculated the probability that life would arise spontaneously anywhere in a universe of 15 billion light-years radius and at least 10 billion years old. They found this probability less than one chance out of 1 with thirty zeroes attached after it. Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr.Wickramasinghe have been reluctantly driven to the conclusion that life must have been created by a Higher Intelligence (a sort of pantheistic intelligence which created spores somehow in other parts of the universe which were caused to drift to earth) since it is far too complex to have risen from natural processes.

Argement from Fine Tuning and Improbability again

 

Alex the Greek wrote:
Men will go to great lengths to rationalize there isn’t a personal Designer of the Universe who intelligently crafted all life. Just from the general and cursory data provided on this web site on the topic, it takes infinitely more faith to believe in evolution than it does in an intelligent Creator. Evolution is a theory with no scientific evidence to back it up. It is an empty faith for those who don’t want to believe in God and should be taught as religion, a religion which inspired Karl Marx to develop his theory of class struggle and influenced Adolf Hitler with his superior, evolved Aryan superman. Many were sacrificed to their ruthless utopian, amoral visions. Evolution is a belief system which looks at an unborn fetus as an animal embryo without a right to life rather than the creation of God.

My goodness.If that isn't the most uninformed,silly thing I've read all week. Despite what your sunday school told you,there is not abundant evidence for creation. And yes, there is plenty for evolution. Why else would the entire scientific communtiy accept it?  I have accpeted evolution for a  releatively short time.Yes, I was a creationst before. Yet everything I've learnt in that time has made sense.In fact, I cannot see how anyone who honestly and open mindly looks at the facts cannot see it.

Evolution is not a faith.And why don't you open your eyes for a second and see that there are many who believe in god and accept evolution.They are so embarassed by the silliness of creation and evidence of evolution they admit it has much merit. Creationist fundamentalism is dying out, wether you acknowledge it or not.

Hitler and Stalin were atheist, they killed millions.

 

Problem: There is little evidence Hitler was atheist. He made many remarks consistent with a belief in god, such as:

 

 ‘Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” –Mein Kampf, pg 65

 

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”- in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933.

 

‘We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism.’-Table-Talk ,pg 6

 

‘I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.’-from John Toland ,Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.

 

It is interesting to note Hitler was never excommunicated from the church, as opposed to say , Galileo , who was only pardoned in 1992.Furhtermore, his campaign against Jews was possible largely because of anti-Semitic preaching’s by the church for hundreds of years.

 

It is likely Hitler simply choose to say whatever his particular audience wanted to hear in regard to belief. There is no reason he should be called atheist.

 

Stalin may have been an atheist, but christians overlook one obvious fact. He killed in the name of Communism, not atheism. Communism is in itself a religion, where the state and leader are worshiped, as opposed to a deity.

Neither of these men, or any other leader I’m aware of, ever killed in the name of atheism.

While not strictly dealing with evolution,that explanation shows it is foolish to credit their actions to it and atheism.Evolution is an impersonal fact of life. Even if someone were to use it in a bad way, the person is at fault,not the science. If I push someone off a building,is it because gravity is a moraless belief that enabled me to kill?

 

 

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:If I push someone

Loc wrote:

If I push someone off a building,is it because gravity is a moraless belief that enabled me to kill?

Yep. Damn that atheist gravitation!

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Hi David.Because you think

Hi David.

Because you think that the Gospels are biographies of sorts, could you please list for me the events which you feel really occurred historically in them?  If you feel that all of the events occurred in them, that's fine too, but still list them.

I would appreciate it if you could separate the events in chronological order, i.e. (Baptism, Wilderness, etc...) and also organize them by Gospel.  So an example would be:

 

MARK

(1) Baptism

(2) Temptations

(etc...)

MATTHEW

(1) etc...

 

Please do this so we can better have this dialog.  Remember to keep the events chronological for me, and number the events so we can keep track.

Best regards,

Rook

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Alex the Greek wrote:In all

Alex the Greek wrote:

In all of history, the men who achieved most were those who could see and feel the untangible

Nice statement, you got anything to back that up with? Here's one from me: In all of history, the men and women who achieved the most were those who didn't believe in Fairy tales.

Alex the Greek wrote:
the argument here is simply faith against the lack thereof. No amount of facts pushing either way will sway anyone's mind. If you really want to know all you need to do is ask God Himself.

Asked God... got no reply. Not helping your cause.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


Jesus Fan (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
How Ridiculous

There are very few historians that actually would go so far as to say that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed.  In fact his life is very much proven through historical text by both Roman, Jewish and Christian history.   So the logic that is used to suppose that Jesus never existed is the same logic that is used to say that the holocaust never happened, the civil war was just a myth and that other written historical accounts never occurred. 

 

The more intelligent debate regarding Jesus Christ should be centered on who he was.  Was he truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Christ, the Messiah?  Or was he some lunatic or liar?  Investigate that and then maybe you will be on the right path to finding truth.  I believe that He was who He said He was.  A good book to read as reference is Lee Strobel's Case for Christ.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Fan wrote:There are

Jesus Fan wrote:

There are very few historians that actually would go so far as to say that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed.  In fact his life is very much proven through historical text by both Roman, Jewish and Christian history.   So the logic that is used to suppose that Jesus never existed is the same logic that is used to say that the holocaust never happened, the civil war was just a myth and that other written historical accounts never occurred. 

 

The more intelligent debate regarding Jesus Christ should be centered on who he was.  Was he truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Christ, the Messiah?  Or was he some lunatic or liar?  Investigate that and then maybe you will be on the right path to finding truth.  I believe that He was who He said He was.  A good book to read as reference is Lee Strobel's Case for Christ.

Strobel's books are good if you only want one side of the story because that's all you get when you read them (and I have).

Look at www.caseagainstfaith.com for a more proper analysis than Strobel will ever give.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1210
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Fan wrote:There are

Jesus Fan wrote:

There are very few historians that actually would go so far as to say that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed.

That is because there are only very few historians who have had the truth revealed to them.

Jesus Fan wrote:

  In fact his life is very much proven through historical text by both Roman, Jewish and Christian history.  

Those historical texts were put here to deceive us.

Jesus Fan wrote:

So the logic that is used to suppose that Jesus never existed is the same logic that is used to say that the holocaust never happened, the civil war was just a myth and that other written historical accounts never occurred.

You first have to accept on faith that jesus never existed, and then use logic to confirm that faith.

Jesus Fan wrote:
 

The more intelligent debate regarding Jesus Christ should be centered on who he was.  Was he truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Christ, the Messiah?  Or was he some lunatic or liar?

If he existed, he would be a lunatic and a liar.  But fortunately, he never existed. 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Fan wrote:There are

Jesus Fan wrote:

There are very few historians that actually would go so far as to say that Jesus Christ of Nazareth never existed.  In fact his life is very much proven through historical text by both Roman, Jewish and Christian history. 

No he isn't.  But thank you for making a completely ignorant and irrelevant statement. 

Quote:
So the logic that is used to suppose that Jesus never existed is the same logic that is used to say that the holocaust never happened, the civil war was just a myth and that other written historical accounts never occurred.

Could you show that correlation in a logical syllogism please.

Quote:
The more intelligent debate regarding Jesus Christ should be centered on who he was.  Was he truly the Son of God, God in the flesh, the Christ, the Messiah?  Or was he some lunatic or liar?  Investigate that and then maybe you will be on the right path to finding truth.  I believe that He was who He said He was.  A good book to read as reference is Lee Strobel's Case for Christ.

The whole lunatic or liar bunk is all about distracting people from the issue.  The issue being that there is absolutely no credible attestation for the existence of Jesus.  Thanks for playing! 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Jiggles Vibe
Posts: 40
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:It has just

Sapient wrote:
It has just been revealed to me that Jesus Christ never existed. I can't imagine living without this knowledge now that I have it. I feel so complete, and it feels so good to finally know the truth that Jesus Christ in fact NEVER existed. I hope you too are able to find this truth.

 

did you happen to see the Zeitgeist video, Cuz it explains in-depth why he doesn't exist, (his name, the date, seeing it as a parody of other mythologies, etc.)

"The longer you live the higher you fly,
the smiles you'll give and the tears you'll cry,
all you touch and all you see,
is all your life will ever be."
-Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon.


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:In those verses, he

Quote:
In those verses, he has 'jesus' riding two animals:

21:4 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled"
21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

Obviously he was riding them rodeo-style, with one foot on the back of each.

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


Jerud1711
Theist
Posts: 44
Joined: 2008-05-24
User is offlineOffline
 Nobody can prove Jesus

 

Nobody can prove Jesus never existed. They can postulate arguments, but not proof. He lived 2,000 years ago; and there is more then sufficient data establishing His existence, as far as the historical method is concerned.

Read

HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY, by John W. Montgomery [He holds three doctorates]

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE, by F.F, Bruce

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS, by Craig Blomberg

THE HISTORICAL JESUS: ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE LIFE OF CHRIST," by Gary Habermas. [garyhabermas.com].

You read one or more of the books listed above, and you will have no problem dealing with any "mythicist" campaigner.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jerud1711 wrote: Nobody can

Jerud1711 wrote:

 

Nobody can prove Jesus never existed. They can postulate arguments, but not proof. He lived 2,000 years ago; and there is more then sufficient data establishing His existence, as far as the historical method is concerned.

Read

HISTORY AND CHRISTIANITY, by John W. Montgomery [He holds three doctorates]

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS: ARE THEY RELIABLE, by F.F, Bruce

THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE GOSPELS, by Craig Blomberg

THE HISTORICAL JESUS: ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE LIFE OF CHRIST," by Gary Habermas. [garyhabermas.com].

You read one or more of the books listed above, and you will have no problem dealing with any "mythicist" campaigner.

 

 

By "dealing with" you mean "being laughed at by"?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Just some guy (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The topic

As I have read this it looks to me that most of what has been said is to just go back and forth with out end. None of the sides moving no mater what evedence is given to them. I believe each person comes to a conclusion on their own dispite everyone else. I encourage you all to forget your beliefs and convictions and come honustly before God with out harrdened heats and ask Him to reviel Himself. Spend a week persuing Him in desperation. When you come to the end of that week you will have your answer on whether or not He exists. You can not deny Jesus until you truly try to have a relationship with Him and you can not blindly fallow a God you do not know. I call all of you to this if you believe in God or not. Just one week.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How can you have a

How can you have a relationship with someone that doesn't exist?


Renee Obsidianwords
High Level DonorModeratorRRS local affiliateSilver Member
Renee Obsidianwords's picture
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2007-03-29
User is offlineOffline
Just some guy wrote: I

Just some guy wrote:

 I encourage you all to forget your beliefs and convictions and come honustly before God with out harrdened heats and ask Him to reviel Himself.

Atheist - no belief in a god

I would say that we have left belief in a god behind...

Just some guy wrote:

Spend a week persuing Him in desperation. When you come to the end of that week you will have your answer on whether or not He exists. You can not deny Jesus until you truly try to have a relationship with Him and you can not blindly fallow a God you do not know. I call all of you to this if you believe in God or not. Just one week.

How does that look; pursuing him in desperation? Many of us have already walked a path with "jesus" or what we thought was supposed to get us close to the supposed savior. I love it when theists automatically believe that we just haven't heard the 'good news' or that we have never attempted a connection to a spiritual side.

Slowly building a blog at ~

http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Renee wrote:we have left

Renee wrote:
we have left belief in a god behind...

Wait, then how does he use the bathroom?


BrainFromArous
BrainFromArous's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2008-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Whatever

Jesus, schmesus. It's my birthday! Time for cake.

Crap, I'm diabetic.

Time for slightly less cake.

 

Boards don't hit back. (Bruce Lee)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Very clever Sapient. This

Very clever Sapient. This thread began in 2006 ! .... worth another bump.

Only superstitious idol seeking wishful loons can believe in a miracle performing god man as described in the bi bull, and all such similar ancient writing. It makes absolute no difference to my grace if a man existed, such as a non writer Socrates, called Jesus, from which the silly folklores of hocus pocus were possibly inspired.

I can say I am an "atheist for jesus", while rejecting his actual mortal existence, and still erect a positive atheistic message from those fables. Using a buddha awakened sense we are all the Christ, we are god, as all is ONE.  The details as is science is awesome, Gawedsome, Yesyeah.  () To the awe, I hold my hands together. To Paul and his, I give the finger.     


enzoconti
atheist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-11-20
User is offlineOffline
BRIAN SAPIENT!Praise be upon

BRIAN SAPIENT!

Praise be upon him!


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
KingDavid8

KingDavid8 wrote:
the_avenging_bucket wrote:
KingDavid8 wrote:
The problem with me is that I need to accept something in my head before I accept something in my heart.
I thought that is what atheists do?
True. That's the way I was when I was an atheist, and it's the way I am now. The only difference is that I finally got around to contemplating the evidence fairly and honestly, and found it convincing. If you haven't found the evidence convincing, then don't believe in it. I only ask that you first contemplate the evidence fairly and honestly. I've seen a lot of people (though by no means everyone) twisting Christian beliefs on this board, and that's neither fair nor honest.
Quote:
And here you show that you have NOT accepted it in your head:
kingdavid wrote:
But that's not going to persuade someone like me who believes that it's possible (though not certain, I'll agree) that God exists
Yes, I have accepted it in my head. I don't need 100% irrefutable proof that someone is true in order to believe in it. Being logically convinced is enough for me. I'd say I'm about 99% convinced that something which we may call "God" exists, even if it's simply the deist version of God. That Jesus was (more likely than not) resurrected convinces me that God is something more than just the deist version. If the only evidence I'd had for God or Jesus was people telling me that something had been revealed to them and therefore I needed to believe it also, never offering me a shred of evidence for their beliefs or even explaining how it was revealed to them, I would never have become a Christian. Some Christians do indeed do this, and I'm not surprised when people refuse to believe them. David

 

Are you looking for an award for Most Ironic Post?

 

BTW, what evidence do you have that the Supernatural (or Subnatural) exists?  The claims of Bronze Age writers 2000 years ago that claimed it exists?  Wow!  What evidence did these writers give you other than their claims? A jock strap with "JC" written on it?

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Scheepie (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
God & Jesus Doesn't exist ??? lol

Listen guys.

Firstly, David, I think you are very brave to take your stand while being stoned by these guys.

Have you ever read the book of Daniel?

There things were revealed to Daniel, which were explained to him by an angel.

These things were what would happen in the future, and funny enough, everything happened exactly like they said..... try to prove that wrong.

You are given the choice to accept God & Jesus, and you will ultimately be judged.

Just remember, the rapture might happen in our lives, and then you should realize that God & Jesus are real. But then you still have a chance Smiling

I hope and pray that you guys will find it it your heart to accept Jesus.

 

David, good luck man Smiling


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Somebody mentioned the book

Somebody mentioned the book of Daniel!

 

Oh Daniel, what a failed prophet are thee! Let me count the ways!

 

1. The name he gives for the King of Judah during the siege is wrong. Jehoiachin, Jehoiakim’s son, was king during the siege.

 

2. He calls Belshazzar a king, but the kingdom had fallen while Belshazzar was still prince. Belshazzar never became a king.

 

3. He claimed that Darius the Mede would receive the kingdom on the " ...very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain.". And yet it was Cyrus the Persian that took the kingdom, not Darius the Mede. There never was a Darius the Mede. Darius the Persian was a famous figure, and the lying author of Daniel seems to have gotten his chronology wrong while creating his hoax.

 

4. His claiming to have been studying Jeremiah's writing in the ' sacred books '. This gives us a time stamp as to when the book of Daniel was really written. Jeremiah was roughly a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar, meaning that he was alive around 585 BCE. The problem here is that Jeremiah wasn't considered cannon, or as the fake book of Daniel puts it ' sacred book '. until about 200 BCE. The author of this lie was familiar with the canonical books, and unwittingly gave away the date of authorship here.

 

5. The author was dead-on with his ' predictions ' of things pertaining to the temple during 167 BCE, but starts getting things wrong when he tries actual prophecy by predicting that Antiochus IV would die between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean sea. Antiochus IV died in Persia.

 

In conclusion, we can see how the author of Daniel lied by claiming a date in the 6th century BCE. This is obvious due to his confusing and distorting history. The man had a poor grasp of what actually happened at that time. His accurate portrayal of events during the second century BCE show a familiarity with his actual current events, and his failure to accurately predict the death circumstances of Antiochus IV tells us that the book was in reality written between 167 and 164 BCE. In short, the author was a fraud, making poor historical " predictions " after the fact, accurate contemporary " predictions ", and abysmal failures at real prediction.

 

So, what can I say but thank you. Thank you ever so much for mentioning Daniel and allowing us all a glimpse at failed prophecy, biblical inaccuracy, and pious forgery in the Bible.

 

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


Stevesafe (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
the TRUTH

I am really impressed by the way David handled all you guys attacking him with simple statements and him responding to everyone with intelligent founded evidence. I will prove to you that he is right. Read on if interested in the real founded truth.

 

Starting from 0:

Step 1: Proof the universe had a beginning

We have existence, we all exist in a known universe with time and this Time factor is passing by. Now To say there is no beginning is equal to saying there was infinite time before now but that just doesn't make sense. Why? If I say I will go to the movies in an infinite amount of time, will I ever go to the movies? Of course not. So if there wasn't a beginning, we simply wouldn't have a "Now".  So you see why we must have a beginning.. Case closed

 

Step 2: Proof of an energie prior to existence

We have already proved there was a beginning. We have only two possibilities (and no others): either all this came out of nothing, or out of something..

All the scientific laws (chemistry, physics, etc..) point to this fact: Nothing is created, Nothing is lost, Everything is transformed!

So to say that something came out of nothing just doesn't make sense at all and would contradict the most simplistic scientific laws. So all this came from some real energie. Let's call this energie God without defining him. Case closed

 

Step 3: Great evidence of an Intelligent Creator God

Let's say you are walking back from a stip club and you find a watch laying on the ground. You pick it up and open it and see all the intelligent design and how all the pieces are attached to each other. Would you think for one second that nobody made it? That it assembled itself by chance or a series of coincidences?

Atheists always say that we have the burden of proof, they say for example that it's unlikely that miracles happen because reality doesn't reflect it. I agree with this view and I am using it here. It is highly unlikely that miracles happen and so it is highly unlikely that this watch had assembled itself by chance or by whatever. Somebody assembled it, a designer.

By the same reasoning, this intelligently designed and incredibly complex universe was created by an intelligent designer, GOD!!! Case closed

 

Step 4: Proof Jesus existed

This is actually very easy, who would ever say that Alexander the Great didn't exist? Noone. Why? because there was historic evidence of him.

Actually this is what Wikipedia had to say about Alexander the Great's historic sources:

"The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity. Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander's general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Another influential account is by Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources."

Bare in mind that we are talking about Alexander The Great, the conquerer of the WORLD!!! Jesus was nothing compared to Alexander, yet he got more accounts and sources than Alexander. Eye witnesses could include Matthiew and John. Marc was Peter's companion and Luc Paul's companion. Actually most scholars agree that Luc should be put among the best historians. Don't you ask yourself these questions?

Some say only the bible mentions Jesus. Oh yeah what about these sources:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger

Actually this is what tacitus the ROMAN historian said:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[60]"

Don't forget Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. So he had access to all the records.

In the court of law, this is "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Jesus certainly existed, people who say he didn't exist are simply ignorant or don't want to deal with their sins.

I would prefer a million times to argue about Jesus resurrection then about his historicity. Case closed

 

Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1

We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this passage is not talking about Jesus.

Isaiah 53:

 1 Who has believed our message
       and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
       and like a root out of dry ground.
       He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
       nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

 3 He was despised and rejected by men,
       a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
       Like one from whom men hide their faces
       he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 4 Surely he took up our infirmities
       and carried our sorrows,
       yet we considered him stricken by God,
       smitten by him, and afflicted.

 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.

 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.

 7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
       yet he did not open his mouth;
       he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
       and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
       so he did not open his mouth.

 8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
       And who can speak of his descendants?
       For he was cut off from the land of the living;
       for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death,
       though he had done no violence,
       nor was any deceit in his mouth.

 10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
       and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

 11 After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
       by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
       and he will bear their iniquities.

 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
       and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
       because he poured out his life unto death,
       and was numbered with the transgressors.
       For he bore the sin of many,
       and made intercession for the transgressors.

 Not bad for an 8th century BC passage.. huh?

 Without going into all the details,

 "For he was cut off from the land of the living; 
 for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "

prediction of death, this has surely happened, Tacitus declares it.

"he was pierced for our transgressions" This is crucifixion, 700 BC crucifying people didn't even exist. Tacitus said Christ suffered the extreme penalty under Poncius Pilate, which was crucifixion at the time.

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death, "

with the rich in his death, Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin he put him in the tomb he chose.

 "After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ; "
 

And WHAT A COINCIDENCE? on top of all this an empty tomb that not even the Jews deny.

JESUS IS GOD!!! Eye-wink

 


General-Forrest
General-Forrest's picture
Posts: 87
Joined: 2008-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Ok Jesus was a Human not a God or Son of God!

Stevesafe wrote:

I am really impressed by the way David handled all you guys attacking him with simple statements and him responding to everyone with intelligent founded evidence. I will prove to you that he is right. Read on if interested in the real founded truth.

 

Starting from 0:

Step 1: Proof the universe had a beginning

We have existence, we all exist in a known universe with time and this Time factor is passing by. Now To say there is no beginning is equal to saying there was infinite time before now but that just doesn't make sense. Why? If I say I will go to the movies in an infinite amount of time, will I ever go to the movies? Of course not. So if there wasn't a beginning, we simply wouldn't have a "Now".  So you see why we must have a beginning.. Case closed

 

Step 2: Proof of an energie prior to existence

We have already proved there was a beginning. We have only two possibilities (and no others): either all this came out of nothing, or out of something..

All the scientific laws (chemistry, physics, etc..) point to this fact: Nothing is created, Nothing is lost, Everything is transformed!

So to say that something came out of nothing just doesn't make sense at all and would contradict the most simplistic scientific laws. So all this came from some real energie. Let's call this energie God without defining him. Case closed

 

Step 3: Great evidence of an Intelligent Creator God

Let's say you are walking back from a stip club and you find a watch laying on the ground. You pick it up and open it and see all the intelligent design and how all the pieces are attached to each other. Would you think for one second that nobody made it? That it assembled itself by chance or a series of coincidences?

Atheists always say that we have the burden of proof, they say for example that it's unlikely that miracles happen because reality doesn't reflect it. I agree with this view and I am using it here. It is highly unlikely that miracles happen and so it is highly unlikely that this watch had assembled itself by chance or by whatever. Somebody assembled it, a designer.

By the same reasoning, this intelligently designed and incredibly complex universe was created by an intelligent designer, GOD!!! Case closed

 

Step 4: Proof Jesus existed

This is actually very easy, who would ever say that Alexander the Great didn't exist? Noone. Why? because there was historic evidence of him.

Actually this is what Wikipedia had to say about Alexander the Great's historic sources:

"The primary sources, texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and some letter-fragments of dubious authenticity. Contemporaries who wrote full accounts of his life include the historian Callisthenes, Alexander's general Ptolemy, Aristobulus, Nearchus, and Onesicritus. Another influential account is by Cleitarchus who, while not a direct witness of Alexander's expedition, used sources which had just been published. His work was to be the backbone of that of Timagenes, who heavily influenced many historians whose work still survives. None of these works survives, but we do have later works based on these primary sources."

Bare in mind that we are talking about Alexander The Great, the conquerer of the WORLD!!! Jesus was nothing compared to Alexander, yet he got more accounts and sources than Alexander. Eye witnesses could include Matthiew and John. Marc was Peter's companion and Luc Paul's companion. Actually most scholars agree that Luc should be put among the best historians. Don't you ask yourself these questions?

Some say only the bible mentions Jesus. Oh yeah what about these sources:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger

Actually this is what tacitus the ROMAN historian said:

"Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.[60]"

Don't forget Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. So he had access to all the records.

In the court of law, this is "positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine."

Jesus certainly existed, people who say he didn't exist are simply ignorant or don't want to deal with their sins.

I would prefer a million times to argue about Jesus resurrection then about his historicity. Case closed

 

Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1

We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this passage is not talking about Jesus.

Isaiah 53:

 1 Who has believed our message
       and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
       and like a root out of dry ground.
       He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
       nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

 3 He was despised and rejected by men,
       a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
       Like one from whom men hide their faces
       he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

 4 Surely he took up our infirmities
       and carried our sorrows,
       yet we considered him stricken by God,
       smitten by him, and afflicted.

 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
       he was crushed for our iniquities;
       the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
       and by his wounds we are healed.

 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
       each of us has turned to his own way;
       and the LORD has laid on him
       the iniquity of us all.

 7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
       yet he did not open his mouth;
       he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
       and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
       so he did not open his mouth.

 8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
       And who can speak of his descendants?
       For he was cut off from the land of the living;
       for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death,
       though he had done no violence,
       nor was any deceit in his mouth.

 10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
       and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
       he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
       and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

 11 After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
       by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
       and he will bear their iniquities.

 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
       and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
       because he poured out his life unto death,
       and was numbered with the transgressors.
       For he bore the sin of many,
       and made intercession for the transgressors.

 Not bad for an 8th century BC passage.. huh?

 Without going into all the details,

 "For he was cut off from the land of the living; 
 for the transgression of my people he was stricken. "

prediction of death, this has surely happened, Tacitus declares it.

"he was pierced for our transgressions" This is crucifixion, 700 BC crucifying people didn't even exist. Tacitus said Christ suffered the extreme penalty under Poncius Pilate, which was crucifixion at the time.

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
       and with the rich in his death, "

with the rich in his death, Joseph of Arimathea was in the Sanhedrin he put him in the tomb he chose.

 "After the suffering of his soul,
       he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ; "
 

And WHAT A COINCIDENCE? on top of all this an empty tomb that not even the Jews deny.

JESUS IS GOD!!! Eye-wink

 

Jesus existed as a human based on Josephus mentioning in some detail "James brother of Jesus" and Paul's letters to the Galatians 1:19 "I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's Brother. These show that a human named Jesus existed but do not give credit or evidence to Jesus being the Son of God and Messiaih. Do not mistake me saying Paul is proof for Jesus being the Lord. I am not saying this and I do think Paul hijacked Christianity and made a himself a new religion.

Some say only the bible mentions Jesus. Oh yeah what about these sources:

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger

Jesus certainly existed, people who say he didn't exist are simply ignorant or don't want to deal with their sins.

         Ok I used Josephus but not the way you used him. You would love to use the Forgery that was added by Christians who had control of Josephus's writings and added in stuff about Jesus then turn around and try to say that it is a secular source which you fail at. So do you think anyone will take Josephus seriously thanks to either ignorant or decietful people using him as proof for Jesus son of God for their own gain? Why should I take you seriously from this post when you show to take the conservative christian point of view all the while probably ignoring all the misses that History has shown?

Tacitus mentions a Christos one time in all his writings. This is not a good person to use and you should of known this before even mentioning him. Again this is a grasp at air move attempt to Justify you belief system and try to get others to join up with your belief. Sorry but you are not convincing me of Jesus son of God which is different then Jesus the human.

Did you really mention Pliny the Younger??? Pliny the Younger was a Christian so ergo their will be bias that he will claim Jesus existed it goes with his faith system. Why do you set yourself up to be looked at the very least as ignorant?

Ok time for evidence on your part! Jesus existed I don't disagree. Now again can you prove God? I will not look at this post as evidence for God because it is not. As for this idea "don't want to deal with their sins" sorry buddy but I think we can see why Stevesafe believes in Christianity; he needs fire insurance and does not want to go to hell for his sins. Sorry Steve ignorance is not a proof nor is the idea that people won't listen to God because they sinned for sins. Please can you provide us evidence of God and Sins before we go any further about the Bible?

General-Forrest


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I will prove to you

Quote:
I will prove to you that he is right. Read on if interested in the real founded truth.

How arrogant do you have to be to assume that everyone will be convinced by your little rant?

Step 1: You're not considering other logical problems associable with each idea. Possibilities for the origin of the universe include infinite time, infinite regress, nothing existing before a certain point, etc. Each model possesses its own flaws.

Step 2: In step 1, you argued that the universe must have had a beginning. Yet, now, as one of your premises, you are assuming that this law isn't applicable to "God." What is your justification for this?

Step 3: Perhaps you are applying some knowledge that you gained from watching, "Way of the Master?" I'll just throw out some casual refutations. You know that a watch has a maker because you can travel to a factory and watch minimum wage joes making them. I highly doubt that you've ever seen God making a tree. 

So, because a painting has a painter, a tree must have a creator? Why?

Step 4: 

Quote:
yet he got more accounts and sources than Alexander

No, he didn't.

And, there are no reliable "eyewitness" accounts. However, there are a few religious writings, which contradict each, that appeared decades after Jesus's death reminiscing about hundreds of eyewitnesses.   

Quote:
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger

All of these are long debunked, although I haven't studied the details.

To start, try this page.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/compilation_of_works_from_rook_hawkins

Step 5: In order to use the Bible as evidence for anything, especially considering its internal inconsistencies and its contradictions with science, you must first prove the validity of the Bible itself.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
I have a question about

I have a question about this. So it looks like the best case for christians would be Jesus existed as it is written about. The worst case would be that the writers pretend he existed while knowing he's just a regular guy they modeled some stories off of and they didnt even think they were inspired or just a total fiction. Would the next best thing to having a literal interpretation be a spiritual jesus. I saw Rooks post on how Paul believed in a spiritual jesus. If that were true wouldnt that be way better than just being a fictional jesus? You could still say that the writers were inspired to complete the old testament. And it kind of solves the whole problem of God not "existing" or not being able to interfere with humanity since he is technically not part of the universe and undefinable in any way.

 


MiA-iNfiDeL
MiA-iNfiDeL's picture
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-12-12
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:JesusSaves

Sapient wrote:
JesusSaves wrote:
Sapient wrote:
That's impossible. Who knew him and wrote about him? I already knew before anything was revealed to me that first hand accounts of Jesus don't exist. In addition it was revealed to me that he didn't exist. You don't have to believe me, I really don't care, just know you are definetly wasting your life in believing in him, because I know that he didn't exist for a fact.
how do you know that for a FACT? were you there during the time of Jesus Lifetime?
I told you it was revealed to me. I know for sure now. I hope you find out this truth.

LOL...I like this. Playing them at their own game.


daedalus
daedalus's picture
Posts: 260
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
KingDavid8 wrote: Then

KingDavid8 wrote:
Then whoever or whatever revealed that to you is lying.
  Hmmmm... exactly what the unbelievers said about Jesus....  Ironic!

 

I find it funny that every Prophet who has ever come along in human history has challenged the Status Quo.  Even Jesus changed the rules from the Prophet before him - and yet when a new guy says, "Hey! I'm a prophet and here are the new rules!"

 

People immediately say, "You can't be!  You're making new rules!"

 

Duh...

 

So, I believe Sapient must be right.  Not to mention, I had the same revelation.  Jesus never existed.

Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov


Todd Pence
Todd Pence's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
the TRUTH

Stevesafe wrote:

Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1

We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this 

 

 

The idea that the Bible contains messianic prophecies in the Old Testament which were miraculously fulfilled by Jesus was completely and totally refuted by Thomas Paine over two hundred years ago. Read it for yourself:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html

Others have echoed Paine's arguments in the years since, but his debunkery pretty much is the definitive statement of the case against this particularly silly "evidence" for the Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of Messianic prophecy has been so falsified that there are only four possible reasons why a person would even think of bringing up such an argument in a modern discussion:

1. The person is woefully ignorant of the falsifying evidence against the messianic prophecy argument, indicating that they possess a lack of education that is going to ill serve them in debates with reasonably well-informed opponents.

 

2. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy argument, but nonetheless uses it in the hope that their audience is the type of ignoramus described in #1.

 

3. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy, but has deluded themselves by a number of nonsensical rationalizations into believing that messianic prophecy is nonetheless still a valid doctrine. These rationalizations mainly consist of insisting that Old Testament writers were really writing about the coming of Christ when they appeared to be writing about a completely different situation; or that Christ really did fulfill an Old Testament prophecy even when the prophecy specifies things he did not do or attributes he did not have.

 

4. The person suffers from a mental developmental disability which enables them to have a childlike faith and belief in a doctrine such as messianic prophecy, while it sadly prohibits them from possessing the higher reasoning and critical thinking faculties necessary to comprehend the falsifying evidence against that doctrine.

 

 

 

Tell me, "The Truth", which of those four categories do you fall under?


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Todd Pence wrote:Stevesafe

Todd Pence wrote:

Stevesafe wrote:

Step 5: Evidence Jesus is God's son or God's #1

We have a book of prophecies called the Bible. I am not going to mention all the prophecies but I am going to mention a big one and I challenge anyone to tell me this 

 

 

The idea that the Bible contains messianic prophecies in the Old Testament which were miraculously fulfilled by Jesus was completely and totally refuted by Thomas Paine over two hundred years ago. Read it for yourself:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/examine_prophecies.html

Others have echoed Paine's arguments in the years since, but his debunkery pretty much is the definitive statement of the case against this particularly silly "evidence" for the Christian faith. In fact, the doctrine of Messianic prophecy has been so falsified that there are only four possible reasons why a person would even think of bringing up such an argument in a modern discussion:

1. The person is woefully ignorant of the falsifying evidence against the messianic prophecy argument, indicating that they possess a lack of education that is going to ill serve them in debates with reasonably well-informed opponents.

 

2. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy argument, but nonetheless uses it in the hope that their audience is the type of ignoramus described in #1.

 

3. The person is aware of the falsifying evidence against messianic prophecy, but has deluded themselves by a number of nonsensical rationalizations into believing that messianic prophecy is nonetheless still a valid doctrine. These rationalizations mainly consist of insisting that Old Testament writers were really writing about the coming of Christ when they appeared to be writing about a completely different situation; or that Christ really did fulfill an Old Testament prophecy even when the prophecy specifies things he did not do or attributes he did not have.

 

4. The person suffers from a mental developmental disability which enables them to have a childlike faith and belief in a doctrine such as messianic prophecy, while it sadly prohibits them from possessing the higher reasoning and critical thinking faculties necessary to comprehend the falsifying evidence against that doctrine.

 

 

 

Tell me, "The Truth", which of those four categories do you fall under?

After reading Rook Hawkins, it appears that a reasonable stance is to say that the new testament was specifically written to match the old testament prophecies. Especially, since that is the claim of the writers. The major question is is it a fiction? To argue that it doesnt match old testament prophecies actually strengthens the new testament as a independent work favoring a historical jesus. So which stance would you prefer?


Oscar
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 It was very clever of God,

 It was very clever of God, when he decided to become an author, to learn Greek and to not learn it better.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Non-existent Jesus appeared

Non-existent Jesus appeared to me in a dream last night and told me to call on a job. Guess what! He was right! Surely this is irrefutable proof of Jesus having never existed!

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


peteskeet (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
you!

are the DEVIL!!!!!


fightforchrist (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
revealed to you by who?

revealed to you by who? another athiest, like youself, who is scared to have any faith at all?


Tiff (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
One of us is right...I hope it's YOU

That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.

Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?

Why do people hate God so much?

What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him. 

Sounds pretty awesome to me. 

To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that WE WILL one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.

How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...

There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)

#1. God DOES NOT exist

OR

#2. God DOES exist

THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:

A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)

OR

B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.

Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

 


Tiff
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-07
User is offlineOffline
One of us is right...I hope it's YOU!

That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.

Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?

Why do people hate God so much?

What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him. 

Sounds pretty awesome to me. 

To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that we will one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.

How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...

There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)

#1. God DOES NOT exist

OR

#2. God DOES exist

THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:

A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)

OR

B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.

Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Tiff wrote:That's so

Tiff wrote:

That's so crazy...because it was just revealed to me that Jesus Christ does exist! One of us is right. I hope it's you because then I'll be cool either way when I die. Vice versa?...not so great for you in the end.

Why does Jesus Christ make people so angry?

Why do people hate God so much?

What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children? So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him. 

Sounds pretty awesome to me. 

To even begin to try to understand that LOVE we need to de-human ourselves and that is impossible. The fact is that we will one day understand it...until then its kinda like math (to compare God to math is weird, I know, but just hear me out). Why does 1+1=2? Seriously...think about it! What is one? Why does it equal 2? It's something so simple that we just acccept. It just makes sense and we don't question it once we accept it as truth.

How you live all boils down to when you die: I believe ALL COULD AGREE on this...

There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)

#1. God DOES NOT exist

OR

#2. God DOES exist

THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:

A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)

OR

B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.

Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

 

::facepalm::

I don't hate any God.  I never met Jesus or ever been negatively effected by him directly in order to be angry with him.

Appeals to emotion or Pascal's wager are sooooo debunked it's crazy you'd try to use them.

- Why is staying dead bad?

- Why Should someone WANT to receive judgment or live for God?

 

When you say "revealed" that jesus DOES exist... would you explain exactly what this revelation was?  It is based off evidence?

 

Bleh

 

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Tiff wrote:Why do people

Tiff wrote:

Why do people hate God so much?

Non-theists don't hate God. Why would we hate something we don't believe exists?

Quote:
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children?

Nothing, but the God of the Bible allows his children to be tortured for all eternity. Sounds like an abusive father to me.

Quote:
So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.

Why is it his purpose to live and die? Why must he do this?

Quote:
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)

#1. God DOES NOT exist

OR

#2. God DOES exist

THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:

A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)

OR

B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.

Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

No, you're ignorant. If Islam is true, you're going to hell. If reincarnation is true, we'll be born again. If Scientology is true, you're going to become an alien or something. The intent of Pascal's Wager (the name of the argument you're using) is to weigh the possible outcomes and argue that one decision is favorable because it produces a better average outcome. However, Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy because only the Christian/atheist choice and Christian/atheist outcomes are represented. Every religion that ever existed and every possible afterlife scenario not represented by a belief system must also be accounted for precisely because Pascal's Wager is just that, a wager.

Of course, even these outcomes are purely arbitrary. You assume that atheists will go to a hell and Christians will go to a heaven if they exist, when the opposite scenario, Christians going to a hell and atheists going to a heaven, is just as likely. If you attempt to argue that this is not the case, then you're no longer making a wager, so you would be effectively discarding the argument that you're trying to defend. 

Finally, belief is a state, not a choice. To believe in something, you must, by definition, believe that it holds truth value, that it is actually likely to conform to reality. Since Pascal's Wager does not actually make God more likely to exist, it cannot make you believe in God; it can only make you want to believe in God.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascals_wager

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascal039s_wager_version_20

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/5652

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Tiff
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-07
User is offlineOffline
"Bleh"? Why "bleh"?Staying

"Bleh"? Why "bleh"?

Staying dead is not bad at all. That would mean that there is no Christian God, which is a relief for atheists and agnostics.

No one wants to be judged but who better to judge us than our Creator?

If I were to prove to you that the Christian God is alive and the one and only true God, would you then believe?...If i had tangible, solid proof?

 

Woohoo


Tiff
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-05-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Tiff

butterbattle wrote:

Tiff wrote:

Why do people hate God so much?

Non-theists don't hate God. Why would we hate something we don't believe exists?

Quote:
What's so terrible about a Father ACTUALLY LOVING his children?

Nothing, but the God of the Bible allows his children to be tortured for all eternity. Sounds like an abusive father to me.

Quote:
So much that this all-knowing God, this incomprehensible being--creator of the universe, the Earth, and every living and dead thing that ever was and will be on it--would come down from His unimaginabe kingdom to become this simple-minded human being on earth and live this PERFECT life, fulfilling His sole PURPOSE of LIVING and DYING so WE could be with Him.

Why is it his purpose to live and die? Why must he do this?

Quote:
There are 2 possibilities : (only one can be true)

#1. God DOES NOT exist

OR

#2. God DOES exist

THEREFORE...WHEN YOU DIE YOU WILL EITHER:

A. Stay dead (PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY)

OR

B. Face God...and receive His JUDGEMENT based on the life that you lived FOR HIM.

Whatever you believe the truth to be YOU BETTER BE RIGHT.

No, you're ignorant. If Islam is true, you're going to hell. If reincarnation is true, we'll be born again. If Scientology is true, you're going to become an alien or something. The intent of Pascal's Wager (the name of the argument you're using) is to weigh the possible outcomes and argue that one decision is favorable because it produces a better average outcome. However, Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy because only the Christian/atheist choice and Christian/atheist outcomes are represented. Every religion that ever existed and every possible afterlife scenario not represented by a belief system must also be accounted for precisely because Pascal's Wager is just that, a wager.

Of course, even these outcomes are purely arbitrary. You assume that atheists will go to a hell and Christians will go to a heaven if they exist, when the opposite scenario, Christians going to a hell and atheists going to a heaven, is just as likely. If you attempt to argue that this is not the case, then you're no longer making a wager, so you would be effectively discarding the argument that you're trying to defend. 

Finally, belief is a state, not a choice. To believe in something, you must, by definition, believe that it holds truth value, that it is actually likely to conform to reality. Since Pascal's Wager does not actually make God more likely to exist, it cannot make you believe in God; it can only make you want to believe in God.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascals_wager

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascal039s_wager_version_20

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/5652

How did you split each paragraph up and reply to them individually?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline

JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Tiff wrote:"Bleh"? Why

Tiff wrote:

"Bleh"? Why "bleh"?

Staying dead is not bad at all. That would mean that there is no Christian God, which is a relief for atheists and agnostics.

Continuance after death wouldn't prove or disprove a god of any stripe.

Tiff wrote:
No one wants to be judged but who better to judge us than our Creator?
Engineering principles show us that often the creator or is least likely to be able to judge the quality of the creation.

Tiff wrote:
If I were to prove to you that the Christian God is alive and the one and only true God, would you then believe?...If i had tangible, solid proof?
It wouldn't be belief then, it would be knowledge.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray