Proof How Your Religion Could Be Made Up

[sealybobo]

Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985). The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay.

Since there are so many religions, then God Almighty must exist. People are not as coward as to invent a God just so they can feel secure.

Since there are all these religions, then any given religion is most likely to be made up. This is so because only one religion can ultimately be true. It can not be Christianity just because Jesus supposedly said he was God, while Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, etc, did not. If Jesus said he was God, yet a human being, he is keeping other humans in immense slavery because he did not say anything about this universe. He is keeping all to himself while we are humans, same as he, and he could tell us about those matters. In brief, Christianity makes no sense.

One senses that the truth must be in one of the 3 great monotheistic religions. The only one that makes sense is Islam because it puts together all the pieces of the puzzle. It teaches about Adam, Abraham, Moses, Noah, David, Solomon, etc, and Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family). It teaches that they all came with the same message, but as time advanced the message needed to be reformed; and also people corrupted the messages. Jesus warned about a false prophet. Muhammad also did. This false prophet comes in the end times. All this wrong things you see that did not exist in previous times and bring disasters on mankind, that's the false prophet. Islam is the religion that puts together all the pieces of the puzzle. Islam can never be a religion made up. As such, all other religions are made up. This is only common sense.

Because there are so many different religions and there were hundreds before todays we know it is a cultural phenomenon

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

 

[Muslim75]

Sealybobo,

Religion is about God, or Truth. Culture is different.

 

[westwall]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.

You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?

The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.

Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.

 

[westwall]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

Do you take everything you THINK you know as gospel?

Of course not. However, I studied this over 40 years ago so my memory is certainly hazy on the details, but the overall timelines are correct.

 

[westwall]

There is zero direct evidence for the Big Bang. Cosmology can take us to within 500,000 years or so of the event. The best mathematicians, and the best physicists, and the best astronomers have been working on that particular problem for 75 years now. These are the best and the brightest that mankind has produced in a 1000 years. They have been able to track down proxies, and other forms of indirect evidence for this event.

And we still believe that it happened. That all of the universe that we know of originated from a singularity the size of a proton. Do you know what a proton is? It is part of the nucleus of an atom..... In other words ALL of the matter that exists in this universe....ALL OF IT......originated from a point smaller than the period at the end of this sentence.

That is the theory that the best and the brightest have come up with. You are quibbling over the existence of a man who's followers founded a religion, who we have direct evidence of 60 years after the fact, and who existed in a time when there were almost no people who could read or write?

Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? Just as I believe that the Big Bang occurred, and that all of this universe erupted from that singularity, I also believe that Jesus was a real person. Of that there is NO doubt. Whether he is the Son of God or not is for religious people to discover for themselves. But that he existed is not in question.

To say he didn't is to ignore the history that does remain (and remember dear bobo, most of everything that has ever been written has been lost or destroyed) and to ignore the very nature of mankind, and how we interacts with others.

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, ascientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.

God isn't a theory because you have to have some scientific evidence for it to be that. All god is IS a hypothesis. The big bang is a scientific theory. Could it be wrong? Sure. But so far you can't even give us one shred of evidence for your god's existence. Pathetic. You just made it up. Today we don't get killed for calling you out on this but we did get killed for thousands of years. Why do you think the lie is so embedded into your brain? Your society/parents put it there. If we all believed in unicorns for thousands of years you'd be on USMB arguing for unicorns.

To be sure, and yet you ignore well established human behavior, and well known historical facts, that support the existence of a person known as Jesus. I'm agnostic silly boy, so don't go lumping me in with the religious folks. I AM a scientist however, and there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the Big Bang.

As far as the existence of a God, however, there is neither evidence for, or against that too, is a fact.

Go to whynogod.com and see plenty of "evidence" that proves gods made up. Watch the cosmos. Youtube Carl Sagan or find a podcast of atheists explaining it.

There really is no good evidence for even Jesus. Could be completely made up. I assume he existed but was just a man and he probably didn't say or do half the shit they say he did.

No, there isn't. It is opinion and nothing more. What if God created the Big Bang, setting everything in motion, with a set of natural laws in place, and then went away? Merely checking in from time to time to check on his experiment, but otherwise not interacting in any way? Provide evidence that that could not be the way the universe was created.

Tell me why you dont believe. Otherwise I think I'm talking to a christian in agnostic clothing.

I don't "believe" because I am a scientist. I have seen neither evidence for, or against the existence of a God.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".

Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar

remarkable for a work of total fiction

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".

Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar

remarkable for a work of total fiction

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

 

[sealybobo]

There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, ascientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena.

God isn't a theory because you have to have some scientific evidence for it to be that. All god is IS a hypothesis. The big bang is a scientific theory. Could it be wrong? Sure. But so far you can't even give us one shred of evidence for your god's existence. Pathetic. You just made it up. Today we don't get killed for calling you out on this but we did get killed for thousands of years. Why do you think the lie is so embedded into your brain? Your society/parents put it there. If we all believed in unicorns for thousands of years you'd be on USMB arguing for unicorns.

To be sure, and yet you ignore well established human behavior, and well known historical facts, that support the existence of a person known as Jesus. I'm agnostic silly boy, so don't go lumping me in with the religious folks. I AM a scientist however, and there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the Big Bang.

As far as the existence of a God, however, there is neither evidence for, or against that too, is a fact.

Go to whynogod.com and see plenty of "evidence" that proves gods made up. Watch the cosmos. Youtube Carl Sagan or find a podcast of atheists explaining it.

There really is no good evidence for even Jesus. Could be completely made up. I assume he existed but was just a man and he probably didn't say or do half the shit they say he did.

No, there isn't. It is opinion and nothing more. What if God created the Big Bang, setting everything in motion, with a set of natural laws in place, and then went away? Merely checking in from time to time to check on his experiment, but otherwise not interacting in any way? Provide evidence that that could not be the way the universe was created.

Tell me why you dont believe. Otherwise I think I'm talking to a christian in agnostic clothing.

I don't "believe" because I am a scientist. I have seen neither evidence for, or against the existence of a God.

Pussy. Man up and pick a side. LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

Do you take everything you THINK you know as gospel?

Of course not. However, I studied this over 40 years ago so my memory is certainly hazy on the details, but the overall timelines are correct.

Yea, 40 years ago they use to tell us Moses wrote the bible 3600 years ago but now we know it was written 2500 years ago. Big fucking difference. HUGE difference. So when was the New Testament written? Who fucking knows.

The first five books of the bible in Judaism are called the Torah, are attributed to having have been written between the 16th century and the 12th century BCE by Moses, but scholars now believe that they were actually written by four main sources known as JEDP in the 5th century

Dating the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

They are not eyewitness accounts.

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.

You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?

The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.

Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.

An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?

 

[sealybobo]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

 

[westwall]

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".

Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar

remarkable for a work of total fiction

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

So what. All evidence of the Big bang is hearsay as well. Further, it's hearsay that is hundreds of thousands of years after the fact.

 

[westwall]

To be sure, and yet you ignore well established human behavior, and well known historical facts, that support the existence of a person known as Jesus. I'm agnostic silly boy, so don't go lumping me in with the religious folks. I AM a scientist however, and there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for the Big Bang.

As far as the existence of a God, however, there is neither evidence for, or against that too, is a fact.

Go to whynogod.com and see plenty of "evidence" that proves gods made up. Watch the cosmos. Youtube Carl Sagan or find a podcast of atheists explaining it.

There really is no good evidence for even Jesus. Could be completely made up. I assume he existed but was just a man and he probably didn't say or do half the shit they say he did.

No, there isn't. It is opinion and nothing more. What if God created the Big Bang, setting everything in motion, with a set of natural laws in place, and then went away? Merely checking in from time to time to check on his experiment, but otherwise not interacting in any way? Provide evidence that that could not be the way the universe was created.

Tell me why you dont believe. Otherwise I think I'm talking to a christian in agnostic clothing.

I don't "believe" because I am a scientist. I have seen neither evidence for, or against the existence of a God.

Pussy. Man up and pick a side. LOL.

Scientists don't pick sides (at least they shouldn't. It colors their work when they do). We seek knowledge and facts. That's it.

 

[westwall]

you keep saying that as if it weren't made up.....why?....

Because the people who wrote the bible in 1600 didn't see it happen. Look and fucking read 1 & 2 on whynogod.com or just fucking google "who wrote the bible" and see peter Paul john and Luke did not write the bibles. They didn't even tell the authors what happened while they wrote it down. If you think they did you're delusional. Look at what most experts believe who and when the bibles were written and get back to me. And don't go to your christian sites. They are the ones lying to you lady not me. Why would I lie? You dont put money in my collection plate and I promise I'm not the devil. Your priest is. Run!

Wow, you really don't know the slightest bit of history do you? The Bible is made up of two books, the Old and the New Testaments. The Old testament was written approximately 1400 BCE. The oldest surviving manuscript is I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, of 200 BCE but I could be wrong on that. The New Testament was written in approximately 45-95 AD. The oldest known surviving example is around 125 AD and contains a small portion of the book of John IIRC, it is written on papyrus.

The oldest known complete Bible with both Old and New Testaments is a codex dated around 300-359 AD. The 1400ish Bible is the first one PRINTED on a printing machine, it's also called the Gutenberg Bible and was printed in latin. The 1600's Bible was the first one printed in English and is called the King James Bible because of that. The book has been around a real, real long time.

Before you start trying to teach others, you had better learn the very basics.

Wrong! They use to say the OT was written 1400 years bc but now they believe it was 500bc. AFTER Homer? All made up.

You sure your an agnostic or are you trying to pretend to be a neutral observer?

The more you learn the more you'll start leaning towards athiest.

Who is "they"? An agnostic is by definition an impartial observer, thus you can't be agnostic. You are a militant atheist. Just less militant than some. Either way, you are incredibly poorly educated on the subject.

An atheist supposedly KNOWS that god doesn't exist. How can they? And a theist KNOWS god exists. How can they? They can't. So the most rational position to have is an agnostic atheist.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

As a scientist I think you would know this. What kind of science do you do?

Typical. An atheist doesn't KNOW anything. They BELIEVE there is no God. A theist BELIEVE'S there is a God. It is called faith. They believe even though there is no evidence, just as an atheist BELIEVE'S even though there once again is no proof. They too are relying on faith.

No one KNOWS anything, there is belief. That's it. An agnostic understands there is no proof and doesn't, in general, care either way. We don't get wrapped up in belief because inherent within that is emotion, and as we all know emotions clutter up the mental landscape.

I'm a geologist.

 

[sealybobo]

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".

Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar

remarkable for a work of total fiction

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

So what. All evidence of the Big bang is hearsay as well. Further, it's hearsay that is hundreds of thousands of years after the fact.

No billions honey.

 

[sealybobo]

Go to whynogod.com and see plenty of "evidence" that proves gods made up. Watch the cosmos. Youtube Carl Sagan or find a podcast of atheists explaining it.

There really is no good evidence for even Jesus. Could be completely made up. I assume he existed but was just a man and he probably didn't say or do half the shit they say he did.

No, there isn't. It is opinion and nothing more. What if God created the Big Bang, setting everything in motion, with a set of natural laws in place, and then went away? Merely checking in from time to time to check on his experiment, but otherwise not interacting in any way? Provide evidence that that could not be the way the universe was created.

Tell me why you dont believe. Otherwise I think I'm talking to a christian in agnostic clothing.

I don't "believe" because I am a scientist. I have seen neither evidence for, or against the existence of a God.

Pussy. Man up and pick a side. LOL.

Scientists don't pick sides (at least they shouldn't. It colors their work when they do). We seek knowledge and facts. That's it.

We probably agree more than we disagree so I don't know why you are being such a theist apologist.

 

[westwall]

As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionable originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, "It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth.

Odd that for all that copying, the text is consistent the world over and has been for the past 2 millennium

Not hard to accomplish given 400 years.

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

BBC NEWS UK Magazine The rival to the Bible

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorized Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

There was a Papal Bull held in Budapest IIRC around the year 800 where they hashed out which gospels were going to be included in the Bible and that is also where they created the celebration of the Mass. Attendance in the church was declining so they wanted to figure out some way to get people to come again. The solution was "put on a show!"

 

[westwall]

Sorry 400 years of what, Google? AdobePDF? The text is consistent throughout the entire world since its first dissemination in the first century.

Glad they are finally all on the same page.bfd

How are the Gospels all so similar and consistent since it's it all a "Myth" made up 70 years the main protagonist, who was also a "Myth".

Look at how many different stories about Obama's birthplace compared to Jesus. You'd think that 2,000 years ago, with no Internet or fact checkers, these stories would be filled with local color and flavor, but instead, the earliest texts are 99+% similar

remarkable for a work of total fiction

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another New Testament Contradictions on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors Authorship of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia up to a century after Gospel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia . The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies Internal consistency of the Bible - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

So what. All evidence of the Big bang is hearsay as well. Further, it's hearsay that is hundreds of thousands of years after the fact.

No billions honey.

Nope. Cosmologists have taken us back to within about 350-500 thousand years after the event.