Did Jesus Exist?

[ding]

Atheists also evade scrutiny by being unable to even present a case. Ive never seen one that even closely resembles a decent rationale

Riddle me this: Since nobody actually KNOWS (either by faith or denial) ..
Wouldn't that make us all Agnostics?

If folks are honest, yes. But to any who feel theyve had true interactions with their god, thus feel it rises above faith....i guess those folks are something else....be it accurate or delusional

I experienced it. It was too much. I couldn't handle it.

 

[ding]

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT rejects that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

about 45minutes ago, you called space proof that god exists.

you used the word proof


thats when i told you that you dont understand the difference between evidence and proof


now, youre arguing that its not proof...just evidence


do you understand that these are more reasons nobody belongs discussing these things with you??

GT, let's put this in context. I used both words. I clarified what I meant in the second sentence. Why are you nitpicking this? Why not just investigate it instead?

View attachment 168561

investigation involves a scrutinizing of whats presented....not that I consider what you, personally present...you dont even take care in the words you use

You justify your ignorance any way you want, GT. The reality is that you have never tried to understand my views. You have only dismissed them off hand.

You and I have very different approaches when it comes to discussing things that are controversial. In fact I just had a conversation like that. All I did was ask questions to try to understand the basis for their belief.

 

[G.T.]

Creation can be used as evidence, not proof. That because it would be circular ~ thats not dismissing something out of hand, its offering you a logically coherent reason as to why its not proof.

I didn't say as proof. I said evidence that can be examined to reveal information about itself and the entity that created it.

In court cases both sides usually discuss the exact same evidence but have different conclusions as to what the evidence means.

The problem I have is when evidence is summarily dismissed without investigation. It doesn't pass the smell test. It's almost like people are afraid of having the discussion.

about 45minutes ago, you called space proof that god exists.

you used the word proof


thats when i told you that you dont understand the difference between evidence and proof


now, youre arguing that its not proof...just evidence


do you understand that these are more reasons nobody belongs discussing these things with you??

GT, let's put this in context. I used both words. I clarified what I meant in the second sentence. Why are you nitpicking this? Why not just investigate it instead?

View attachment 168561

investigation involves a scrutinizing of whats presented....not that I consider what you, personally present...you dont even take care in the words you use

You justify your ignorance any way you want, GT. The reality is that you have never tried to understand my views. You have only dismissed them off hand.

You and I have very different approaches when it comes to discussing things that are controversial. In fact I just had a conversation like that. All I did was ask questions to try to understand the basis for their belief.

I dismissed assertions presented as facts, is all I did...and pressed you to realize fact vs. assertion and your assertions persisted.

It was in the face of beating head against a wall syndrome that I gave up on you....nevermind all of the false assumptions, dogma, dictating my beliefs to me, and all the other rude gestures.

Those are an aside, to me....the real issue is in not understanding assertion versus established fact.....and running off in paragraphs of assertions and then concluding that theyve proven something.

A logical proof is flawed when its premises are invalid.

 

[ding]

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

woa... you are skipping way to many steps here. Why don't we start with the creation of space and time before fast forwarding to biological evolution. Biological evolution is only a small part of the equation. My argument takes into account all the stages of the evolution of matter. You have to see the bigger picture. There is no one single thing short of seeking a personal relationship with the Creator and experiencing it for yourself.

But before we have that conversation, can you please humor me and let's explore what kind of information we can extract from what was created and how it evolved. Fair enough?

I'm not even asking you to accept it. I am asking for you to consider it with an open mind. Because it is based on reason and experience. We can use our own experiences and reasoning to see what information we might be able to gleam from the data.

 

[ding]

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

 

[Meriweather]

If folks are honest, yes. But to any who feel theyve had true interactions with their god, thus feel it rises above faith....i guess those folks are something else....be it accurate or delusional

This is where I fit in. I am not one of the blessed who have not seen and yet believe. As far as whether stories are accurate or delusional--or lies to gain attention--is a matter for the one who experiences to discern--and also for those who hear to critically examine and decide for themselves. Frankly, most atheists decide every account is delusional while many of faith decide every account is factual, so anecdotal accounts do not move the ball in either direction. They fall into the realm of things that cannot be proven. What atheists should take from these accounts is that people believe because of actual experiences--not because they are dumb, stupid, or uneducated.

What I am extremely careful about doing is claiming my experience proves everything about God. For example, nothing in my experience verifies God as Creator, so even though I believe and see Him as Creator, nothing in my experience supports this belief. What my experience does support are the statements that God is love, and that God cares immensely. That I can certify and testify to.

 

[westwall]

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

Yes, when I create something. How can you claim to know the intent of a God? Seems like a few scriptures warn against that IIRC.

 

[G.T.]

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

Yes, when I create something. How can you claim to know the intent of a God? Seems like a few scriptures warn against that IIRC.

Leading questions are a terrible way to establish a logical proof. They're actually a crutch ~ if the case was plain and make-able, it'd be made despite outside answers to leading questions. I'm always weary of leading questions for these reasons. They're typically followed by a malformed gotchya and a gigantic waste of time.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. He lives.

If you want to know Him read this:

The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ

 

[westwall]

Exactly.

And atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

woa... you are skipping way to many steps here. Why don't we start with the creation of space and time before fast forwarding to biological evolution. Biological evolution is only a small part of the equation. My argument takes into account all the stages of the evolution of matter. You have to see the bigger picture. There is no one single thing short of seeking a personal relationship with the Creator and experiencing it for yourself.

But before we have that conversation, can you please humor me and let's explore what kind of information we can extract from what was created and how it evolved. Fair enough?

I'm not even asking you to accept it. I am asking for you to consider it with an open mind. Because it is based on reason and experience. We can use our own experiences and reasoning to see what information we might be able to gleam from the data.

OK. Two theories, one is described in the Book of Genesis, In the beginning there was nothing....etc. Cosmologists likewise have a theory for the creation of time and space, it is based on mathematics and basically says the same thing, in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was light. Their mathematics break down in the time between the Big Bang and around 300,000 years after the Big Bang. After that the math works pretty good.

There is further evidence for the Big Bang and that is the universal noise that exists in the background no matter which way you look in the Universe. But, as is true with all theories, there are problems too. My biggest one is if the Big Bang occurred as they claim how is it possible for galaxy's to collide with each other. That defies the behavior of every explosion I have ever seen.

Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, just as I tell an atheist that their theory is Ok for them too. I just have a very high bar for what i will accept as evidence.

 

[ding]

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

Yes, when I create something. How can you claim to know the intent of a God? Seems like a few scriptures warn against that IIRC.

I am not asking you to make that leap in logic just yet. I am just trying to establish the reasonableness that when anyone creates something, as a rule, their creation is the realization of their intention. Pretty much common sense, right?

I'm not sure what scriptures you are referring to but lets park that one for later. Fair enough?

Ok, so again using your own experience and logic, when you create something do you usually do so for a reason? As a rule of course.

 

[ding]

Except that doesn't happen when they are summarily dismissed without investigation.

For instance, GT reject that we can use Creation as evidence for a Creator, despite the fact that if GT created something we could use that as evidence to learn things about him.

Now we can debate what we can learn or how much weight to place on the evidence, but summarily dismissing it without investigation is telling.

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

woa... you are skipping way to many steps here. Why don't we start with the creation of space and time before fast forwarding to biological evolution. Biological evolution is only a small part of the equation. My argument takes into account all the stages of the evolution of matter. You have to see the bigger picture. There is no one single thing short of seeking a personal relationship with the Creator and experiencing it for yourself.

But before we have that conversation, can you please humor me and let's explore what kind of information we can extract from what was created and how it evolved. Fair enough?

I'm not even asking you to accept it. I am asking for you to consider it with an open mind. Because it is based on reason and experience. We can use our own experiences and reasoning to see what information we might be able to gleam from the data.

OK. Two theories, one is described in the Book of Genesis, In the beginning there was nothing....etc. Cosmologists likewise have a theory for the creation of time and space, it is based on mathematics and basically says the same thing, in the beginning there was nothing, and then there was light. Their mathematics break down in the time between the Big Bang and around 300,000 years after the Big Bang. After that the math works pretty good.

There is further evidence for the Big Bang and that is the universal noise that exists in the background no matter which way you look in the Universe. But, as is true with all theories, there are problems too. My biggest one is if the Big Bang occurred as they claim how is it possible for galaxy's to collide with each other. That defies the behavior of every explosion I have ever seen.

Please note, I am not saying you are wrong, just as I tell an atheist that their theory is Ok for them too. I just have a very high bar for what i will accept as evidence.

Can we table this until we work through what kind of information we can obtain from tangible items that are created?

I don't want to muddy the waters and this part of the discussion logically follows the discussion we are having about evidence.

I definitely wish to comment on this though. Just not now.

 

[Tuatara]

Agnosticism doesnt refer to a specific religion's specific prophets or stories, amigo.

Im agnostic as to how existence came to be.

Im "anti" the man made religions on account of their utter fucking ridiculousness.

Do you understand the difference? I can give analogies if thats unclear.

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

Really, I provided a source that tackles all of your sources. I stated that he has many videos and books on the subject. Not one person here has shown they even watched 5 minutes of the video.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

Feel free to laugh, but that is a fact. History is all we have, the taliban blew up giant Buddhas because they weren't part of their religion, they are criminals. Those ancient statues were centuries old. A few assholes felt that they were superior to the needs of all of mankind. I had the great fortune of actually seeing them, but my daughter never will. That is incredibly sad to me as they were truly magnificent.

What this asshole carrier is attempting is in the same vein. He wishes to destroy history because it doesn't support his particular idea of how the world should work.

I finished reading a book about Holocaust deniers last year. The title escapes me but the author made a great point. He said the only ones worse than holocaust deniers are the ones that don't allow them to speak. For when you don't allow them to speak you are showing them you fear that they might be right.

You allow them to speak and then you destroy their argument. Shutting people down means you have something to hide or fear.

 

[antifa]

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts. They claim that there is no God. But they have no evidence for that position. Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position. Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith. I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them. Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

Atheists are as diverse as biology itself. The range is from well known scientists and celebrities to circus performers and even the homeless. Some lack the ability for critical thinking but they pay attention to the world around them and accept the fact that Americans are the exception to the rule of enlightenment in industrialized nations.

Canada, Australia and Japan don't care if Jesus is real or not. They only care if you are a good person without all the hate and destruction that is so prevalent in Abrahamic religions. These religions oppose people developing knowledge and demanding our inalienable rights.

 

[antifa]

Atheists also evade scrutiny by being unable to even present a case. Ive never seen one that even closely resembles a decent rationale

Riddle me this: Since nobody actually KNOWS (either by faith or denial) ..
Wouldn't that make us all Agnostics?

No. We know that faith and denial don't cut it in a physical or metaphysical world. That makes us gnostic.

 

[Tuatara]

Why don't you just admit that you don't believe there is a God, GT?

You already have all the arguments against the beliefs of others.

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

An atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts.

Wrong. Religious means to believe in a religion. Atheism is not a religion.

They claim that there is no God.

They claim they don't believe in God or gods.

But they have no evidence for that position.

There is no evidence for either positions just like there is no evidence for the belief or non belief of Unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns?

Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position.

Some do but most just believe in a God or gods.

Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith.

Wrong again, you really need help on what words mean. Where is the faith in not believing in a god?

I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them.

I cannot speak for theists bit I would not demand anyone think like I do. I have yet to see any atheist do this. If they have please point it out.

Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

There's that word again. There are people on street corners waving bibles in people faces, there are thousands of radio and TV stations that try to indoctrinate the masses with their religion and there are numerous missionaries that travel the world pushing their religion on those people. How does this compare to anything you have seen by atheists?

 

[westwall]

Why would G.T. need to admit a belief or lack of belief in something that is an esoteric intangible?
Agnostics simply say that they DON'T KNOW.
And neither do you.

Do agnostics make arguments against the existence of God?

Nope. We merely point out that what people claim to be evidence for existence generally isn't. The whole point about being an agnostic is not to argue for EITHER side. It is merely to make sure that arguments are made in a proper manner.

Exactly.

An atheism doesnt even pass "go," let alone reaching this level of logical critique.

Atheists are every bit as religious as their religious counterparts.

Wrong. Religious means to believe in a religion. Atheism is not a religion.

They claim that there is no God.

They claim they don't believe in God or gods.

But they have no evidence for that position.

There is no evidence for either positions just like there is no evidence for the belief or non belief of Unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns?

Theists argue that there IS a God, but, yet again, they have no evidence to support that position.

Some do but most just believe in a God or gods.

Both theists, and atheists use arguments based on faith.

Wrong again, you really need help on what words mean. Where is the faith in not believing in a god?

I have no problem with a person who believes in a God, nor do I have a problem with a person who doesn't. What I DO have a problem with is those individuals who demand that I think like them.

I cannot speak for theists bit I would not demand anyone think like I do. I have yet to see any atheist do this. If they have please point it out.

Overwhelmingly it is militant atheists who are trying to impose their viewpoint on me.

There's that word again. There are people on street corners waving bibles in people faces, there are thousands of radio and TV stations that try to indoctrinate the masses with their religion and there are numerous missionaries that travel the world pushing their religion on those people. How does this compare to anything you have seen by atheists?

Let us count the ways that atheism is a religion.

1. Atheism is a BELIEF SYSTEM. Just like any other religion.

2. Atheists have dogma-There is no God. Theists have dogma, there IS a God.

3. Just as theists are wont to proclaim their belief in God so too are atheists prone to wearing t-shirts, and bumper stickers etc. that declare the opposite.

4. Many atheists CONGREGATE in groups for mutual support and understanding. They even have retreats! Sound familiar?

5. So, just as some sects of Buddhism have no belief in a super natural, yet are considered a religion, so to are some sects of atheists. If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, and squawks like a duck....it's a duck!




Oh, and to date, in all of my 70+ years of life, I have never, ever had a person wave a bible in front of me trying to get me to convert. Not once. I did have a Islamist strongly suggest that I not return to his country if I didn't become Muslim once, a fairly long time ago, and I have militant atheists calling me names because i don't spurn my religious colleagues, so you tell me, which is worse? A bible thumper who doesn't thump, or an atheist standing in front of me yelling that i shouldn't work with a religious colleague?

 

[westwall]

That's because Creation is not evidence for a creator. It is an article of Faith that there must be a creator for creation to occur. Scientifically, that is not considered evidence.

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

Yes, when I create something. How can you claim to know the intent of a God? Seems like a few scriptures warn against that IIRC.

I am not asking you to make that leap in logic just yet. I am just trying to establish the reasonableness that when anyone creates something, as a rule, their creation is the realization of their intention. Pretty much common sense, right?

I'm not sure what scriptures you are referring to but lets park that one for later. Fair enough?

Ok, so again using your own experience and logic, when you create something do you usually do so for a reason? As a rule of course.

Sure, so explain all of the failures. If God wanted dinosaurs, and if he made them, why then did he wipe them out? Same go's for the Neanderthals, they were a far more robust group than modern humans. Why did modern man succeed where neanderthal failed? I can go on and on, but I think you get my drift.

 

[westwall]

That makes you an atheist. Agnostics, of which I count myself, merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, the existence of a God.

I dont think theres proof for or against god.

No, it doesn't. It is a vain attempt to delegitimize a known non biblical reference to Jesus. It is called revisionist history and is no different than the despicable scum who try and refute the Holocaust. Two peas from the same despicable pod.

Wow, let's call anyone who argues history a Nazi sympathizer. Did you also know that the story of Paul Revere's midnight ride with his "The British Are Coming" is also false. History is rewritten all the time.

No, I call anyone who tries to revise history for personal, or political gain, a revisionist. Nazi's are the most well known version of that contemptible form of "history" study, but your hero carrier, is cut from the same cloth. He has a political, and a personal reason to try and rewrite history. That makes him a contemptible person. History is. It cares not a tot about a persons individual proclivities, or political aspirations, or religious beliefs. It just is. Anyone who tries to destroy that, as this asshole is doing, is a criminal, destroying the record of humanities progress and retreat from primitive man, to modern man.

Anyone who engages in the destruction of history is committing a crime against humanity.

wut? lol

Feel free to laugh, but that is a fact. History is all we have, the taliban blew up giant Buddhas because they weren't part of their religion, they are criminals. Those ancient statues were centuries old. A few assholes felt that they were superior to the needs of all of mankind. I had the great fortune of actually seeing them, but my daughter never will. That is incredibly sad to me as they were truly magnificent.

What this asshole carrier is attempting is in the same vein. He wishes to destroy history because it doesn't support his particular idea of how the world should work.

I finished reading a book about Holocaust deniers last year. The title escapes me but the author made a great point. He said the only ones worse than holocaust deniers are the ones that don't allow them to speak. For when you don't allow them to speak you are showing them you fear that they might be right.

You allow them to speak and then you destroy their argument. Shutting people down means you have something to hide or fear.

I have no problem allowing revisionists to speak, what I won't allow is them trying to prevent others to speak. That's what your dear mr. carrier does, he tries to shout down anyone who has an opposing viewpoint.

 

[ding]

Sure it is.

If God did will existence into reality, then what He created is tangible and can be used as evidence.

Can I use something you created as evidence even if I didn't know you were the one who created it?

I disagree. There are two theories about how life was created. One is the creation theory, the other is spontaneous generation followed by evolution. There is honestly no evidence presented for EITHER position. There IS evidence for evolution, we have actually seen it happen, but for the spontaneous generation aspect there is zero evidence.

The fact that we are here as people, is not evidence for the creation theory. It is evidence of the evolutionary theory, certainly the fact that our DNA is so close to chimpanzees
reinforces that line of thought. But, yet again, who's to say that a God didn't start the spark of life, and then sit back and see how the experiment turns out?

That's the problem with the arguments, any bit of evidence that you present to support the existence of a God, can likewise be used to refute it.

When you create something is your creation the realization of your intention? As a rule. Can we agree on that?

Yes, when I create something. How can you claim to know the intent of a God? Seems like a few scriptures warn against that IIRC.

I am not asking you to make that leap in logic just yet. I am just trying to establish the reasonableness that when anyone creates something, as a rule, their creation is the realization of their intention. Pretty much common sense, right?

I'm not sure what scriptures you are referring to but lets park that one for later. Fair enough?

Ok, so again using your own experience and logic, when you create something do you usually do so for a reason? As a rule of course.

Sure, so explain all of the failures. If God wanted dinosaurs, and if he made them, why then did he wipe them out? Same go's for the Neanderthals, they were a far more robust group than modern humans. Why did modern man succeed where neanderthal failed? I can go on and on, but I think you get my drift.

Actually, I don't get your drift. The laws of nature are such that given enough time and the right conditions, beings that know and create will eventually arise. The evolution of intelligent life is built into the laws of nature.

But I don't understand what this has to do with having a reason for creating something. To be honest you seem to be looking for ways to avoid answering questions which should be self evident. I am asking you to use your own experiences - as a proxy - and logic to see what kind of information we can gleam from investigating creation.

If you will answer the questions, I will make my point as quickly as possible. I promise.

So do you generally create things for no reason? Or is there a purpose for what you create?