Did Jesus really exist?..

[felix_unger]

What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
"No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"

The atheists moral dilemma .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

“if there was no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God at all. How could they?”

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[Josef Balluch]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:25 +1100, felix_unger wrote:


> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist.

It would also be strange that so much is written about Santa Claus, unless
he exists.

> If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful?

The same point can be made about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.


...


Regards,

Josef



Reason obeys itself, and Ignorance submits to whatever is dictated
to it.

-- Thomas Paine

[VicePopeRandy]

Here's the definitive answer ...

Please know that any person with some education and curiosity who
deigns to discuss religion is doing so in a spirit of fun and
jocularity.

BECAUSE ALL ASPECTS OF ALL RELIGIONS ARE SOLELY AND ENTIRELY OF HUMAN
CONSTRUCT!

god, heaven, hell, afterlife, age of the universe, bible, koran,
jesus, allah, angels,
commandments, word(s) of god, miracles -- ALL are creations and
imaginings of HOMO SAPIENS.

One comforting aspect of any and all "faiths" is the surety that one
needn't worry about there being no afterlife and the reuniting of dead
loved ones.
Because when one's brain straight-lines at the instant of death, there
is no more thought. Just nothingness.

So, GO, live your sole life, and fear no more!

[John Locke]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:25 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:

>
>What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>

There was a whole lot written about Sherlock Holmes, Dick Tracey
and Flash Gordon...but they didn't exist. While it is certainly
possible that some guy named Jesus existed (probably many nut jobs
fit the Jesus profile), it is not rational to think that this joker
was anything other then plain human. The Jesus crucifixion/salvation
crap makes no rational sense whatsoever.

[Smiler]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:25 +1100, felix_unger wrote:

>
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist.

Like Harry Potter?

> If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive.

Got it in one!

> Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful?

"I've got this newly refurbished bridge you might like to buy."
Reality or too fanciful?

> Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not?

There's no evidence that he _did_ exist which means that the stories were
probably woven out of whole cloth. I have no doubt that there were people
named Yoshua living in that area at that time. It was a common name, much
like John and its variants are today. But that, in no way, means that any
of them were the miracle working son of a supposed deity.

> What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true?

There's no evidence that they are, in any way, true and plenty of evidence
that they were made up, sometimes in an attempt to meet the prophesies in
the OT. The fact that the writers were ignorant of the nature of these
prophesies and ignorant of the history of the area at that time points to
the books being written quite some time after the supposed death of the
supposed Jesus by Greek writers, not the supposed apostles, who by
that time would have been long dead.

> Jesus was an ET?

Suuuure!
<backing away slowly>

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-20 15:51, felix_unger wrote:
>
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?

Your premise depends on a peculiar combination of the Ludic Fallacy and
the Historian's Fallacy, with a dash of the Gambler's Fallacy, to draw a
fallacious conclusion that is a Syllogistic Affirmative Conclusion Fallacy.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Wisdom begins in wonder."
-- Socrates of Athens

[Malygris]

felix_unger wrote:

>
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?

That the biblical account is (at least partly) fiction is quite obvious even
without the lack of external sources from the contradictions between the
four (official) accounts.

Does this mean there never was a Rabbi Jeshu? We probably will never know
for sure. There have been quite a number of teachers and rebels during the
time the stories are supposed to have happened so there might be several
sources. Personally I allways wondered about Paul who never seemed to refer
to Jesus' teachings when giving commands to the faithfull, something that
seems to point to a purely legendary character - but then Paul might have
disagreed with the actual teachings...

Were the stories meant to deceive? Not necessrily, the authors might have
written allegories that later were misunderstood as real, they might have
written down legends transmitted orally they considered to be true or they
might have been fanatics who believed their own visions.

--
Malygris

[anarchists network[UK]]

yes he did, his real name was Titus Flavius


"Malygris" <Highlan...@gmx.de> wrote in message

[Don Martin]

"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"

<god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
> On 2012-Mar-20 15:51, felix_unger wrote:
>>
>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>
> Your premise depends on a peculiar combination of the Ludic Fallacy and
> the Historian's Fallacy, with a dash of the Gambler's Fallacy, to draw a
> fallacious conclusion that is a Syllogistic Affirmative Conclusion Fallacy.

One stands in awe of his ability to weave them all together!

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Tronscend]

"Smiler" <Youm...@JoeKing.com> skrev i melding
news:pan.2012.03.21....@JoeKing.com...

> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:51:25 +1100, felix_unger wrote:

'

>> Jesus was an ET?
>
> Suuuure!
> <backing away slowly>

( ... keep him talking until they arrive ...!)

[Tronscend]

"Don Martin" <drdon...@comcast.net> skrev i melding
news:1397403125354015292.0829...@news20.forteinc.com...

> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-Mar-20 15:51, felix_unger wrote:
>>>
>>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>>
>> Your premise depends on a peculiar combination of the Ludic Fallacy and
>> the Historian's Fallacy, with a dash of the Gambler's Fallacy, to draw a
>> fallacious conclusion that is a Syllogistic Affirmative Conclusion
>> Fallacy.
>
> One stands in awe of his ability

Typewriting Monkey Fallacy.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

That reminds me of this quotation:

"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and the UseNet is nothing like Shakespeare!"
-- Blair Houghton

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"How come God gets credit whenever something good happens? Where was he
when her heart stopped?"
-- Dr. Gregory House

[JTEM]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed?

Lined all up and placed on a table?

There's far more & better evidence for Bigfoot and
UFO abductions. There's more physical evidence,
more eyewitness accounts (vastly more) and all
over a far greater period of time.

Personally, I do not believe in an historic Jesus. I
have every reason to believe that Christianity was
invented sometime after the 2nd century as a
Pro Roman, Pro Empire alternative to the uppity
Jews.

...Christianity was invented with some pretty
hefty antiSemitic baggage sewn right in...

[felix_unger]

On 22-March-2012 4:43 PM, JTEM wrote:

> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>> existed?
> Lined all up and placed on a table?
>

> There's far more& better evidence for Bigfoot and

> UFO abductions. There's more physical evidence,
> more eyewitness accounts (vastly more) and all
> over a far greater period of time.
>
> Personally, I do not believe in an historic Jesus. I
> have every reason to believe that Christianity was
> invented sometime after the 2nd century as a
> Pro Roman, Pro Empire alternative to the uppity
> Jews.

don't most scholars agree that the gospels were written well before that?

>
> ...Christianity was invented with some pretty
> hefty antiSemitic baggage sewn right in...
>

[Jason]

In article <wTyar.3659$Yx....@newsfe04.iad>, "Fidem Turbare, the

There was a famous historian that was alive about the same time that Jesus
was still on this earth instead of in heaven. He mentioned Jesus in his
writings. His name may have been Josephus (spelling???).

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<Jason-21031...@67-150-123-106.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Josephus wasn't even born until 4 years after Jesus was allegedly
crucified. So what's your point?

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[Jason]

In article <hlwdjsd-FCC375...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com>, Jeanne

I seem to remember that he mentioned Jesus in his writings.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 6:51:25 AM UTC+8, felix_unger wrote:
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?

If any one with a little bit of brain were to read the buybull, he can tell all the stories are lying shits with his common sense.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

You seem to remember nothing, know nothing and understanding nothing.

Instead of feeding one useful African, the world has seen brainless idiots like you and Liarbag being fed.

[linuxgal]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> Josephus wasn't even born until 4 years after Jesus was allegedly
> crucified. So what's your point?
>

My brother was born 4 years after JFK was allegedly assassinated.
Someday after the apocalypse they will find his fifth grade school
report on Kennedy and that will constitute the same sort of "proof".

[Smiler]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:58:48 +1100, felix_unger wrote:

> On 22-March-2012 4:43 PM, JTEM wrote:
>
>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>>> existed?
>> Lined all up and placed on a table?
>>
>> There's far more& better evidence for Bigfoot and UFO abductions.
>> There's more physical evidence, more eyewitness accounts (vastly more)
>> and all over a far greater period of time.
>>
>> Personally, I do not believe in an historic Jesus. I have every reason
>> to believe that Christianity was invented sometime after the 2nd
>> century as a Pro Roman, Pro Empire alternative to the uppity Jews.
>
> don't most scholars agree that the gospels were written well before
> that?

Nope. Most independent scholars agree on that time frame.

>
>> ...Christianity was invented with some pretty
>> hefty antiSemitic baggage sewn right in...
>>

--

[Jeanne Douglas]

Yeah. So?

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

...and it will probably exhibit a far superior writing style.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:33:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas

The mention is an obvious later insertion by a Christian, eg no Jew
would have called Christianity "the truth".

A major historian who was an exact contemporary, was Philo who was
born circa 20 BCE and died circa 55 CE. He was Jewish aristocracy and
at the heart of events, being related to the Herods by marriage and
business - his nephew married Herod Agrippa II's sister.

And he mentions none of it, From the nativity and the massacre of the
innocents to the events surrounding the crucifixion.

He was a philosopher who attempted to fuse Greek and Judaic
philosophies and introduced the concept of the Logos to Judaism. This
was a major influence on early Christianity even though he wasn't a
Christian - the Logos was John's "In the beginning was the word" but
it was more than that, it was study, knowledge etc. The root of
-ology, logic etc.

[JTEM]

felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> don't most scholars agree that the gospels were written well before that?

It's not real "Science," real scholarship, and it never
was.

I mean, it's not like a bunch of atheists sat down
and then, after years of study, concluded that there
really was a Jesus and the bible dates to his time
or shortly after.

Looking back over "Biblical Scholarship," I can
name instance after instance after instance where
biblical beliefs have been smeared on history and
archaeology.

The Merneptah Stele for one. The "House of
David" inscription for another. Both are completely
anomalous. In neither case does anyone anywhere
clear to find the word being twisted to mean
"Israel" used... not ever... not in any culture...

Nowhere in any culture, at any point in history is
anyone ever claimed to have referred to Israel or
Jerusalem (etc) as "House of David," so why
interpret a text that way, and then claim it means
Israel?

It's pure rubbish.

And even some of the longest standing and most
accepted examples turn out to be rubbish as well.

The single strongest, best example of an historical
figure from the O.T. is the Israeli king "Omri." But
even he is a farce. Turns out the all references to him
in the historical record can be traced to a single
man: Sir H. Rawlinson -- who was NOT (Repeat:
NOT) widely accepted in his own time.

....but his physical proof of the bible was so wildly
popular that it spread, until finally it was so widely
believed and had been around for so long that people
now accept it as fact.

Someone once compared it to school children in
American, many of which were STILL being spoon
fed the biblical myth that men have one fewer rib
than women (ala Adam & Eve) until recent times...
assuming it ever stopped everywhere.

Okay, so why all the O.T. examples when we're talking
about the N.T.? Because there is no physical evidence
for the N.T. to take down. It doesn't exist.

[JTEM]

Malygris <Highlander2...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Were the stories meant to deceive? Not necessrily,

There's no doubt that they were.

See, there was a very real man who lived in the
second century (not the first). This very real man
was the Messiah. For real. He was anointment as
the Messiah. He was proclaimed as the Messiah.

To the Hellenistic world he was Christ. For real.

And, with him -- through him -- there was supposedly
a Jewish uprising so large, so widespread that
the Emperor Hadrian met an army of rebellious
Jews 50,000 strong outside of Alexandria Egypt
alone. The uprising actually extended west from
there and into Libya (at least), plus east into the
middle east and all the way up into northern Anatolia.

....and yet every mention of a "Christ" -- which
is simply Greek for anointed one -- every mention
of a Messiah is not about him. Nope. Or at least
that's the official story....

The key to it all is the Dead Sea Scrolls. They don't
reveal the Jewish religion of today, they don't reveal
Christianity, they reveal an apocalyptic religion --
one that fervently believed in a final battle between
good & evil, a battle were the Roman Empire was
the evil and the Jews were the good.

Now, to get around this they like to claim that the
Dead Sea Scrolls were the product of a tiny (perhaps
insignificant) religious cult centered in Qumran.

Not a chance.

The "Scriptorium" was always rejected by most
archaeologists (apart from "Biblical" archaeologists),
and the dedicated religious cult requires too much
imagination than the evidence will allow for....

Nope, sorry, the Dead Sea Scrolls aren't the beliefs
of a tiny cult, but the popular beliefs of people everywhere.

Seriously? The only record of ancient Jewish beliefs
of the time preaches war on the Romans? They kept
rising up in open warfare against the Romans? Hello?

This isn't a "Coincidence," it's a frigging match!

The only actual copies of Jewish beliefs dating to the
ancient times preach rebellion -- open warfare -- a
final battle between the good & evil and the Roman
Empire representing evil... and we know the ancient
Jews as a people (NOT isolated cults) kept launching
open rebellions...

Now look at Christianity. It offers the exact same hope
the masses, makes all the same promises, only you
don't have to fight and your reward comes in the "Next
World."

You get to Heaven, your oppressors don't.

In Christianity, not only are the Jews the bad guys
while the Romans are the good guys (Pilate was so
disgusted by the way the Jews treated Jesus that
he literally "Washed his hands" of the disgrace), but
the people are taught to pay their taxes. Rebellion
is bad. They're lucky to be impoverished, or
enslaved or otherwise exploited.

"The meek shall inherit the earth."

and...

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a
needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
God."

And the stories? In the stories Christians told each
other there was nothing better, nothing more rewarded
than going meekly to your slaughter. It was a direct
path into Heaven, a Get-Into-Heaven-Free card. This
the opposite of the Jews who preached rebellion,
rising up -- fighting.

Look. Grecco-Roman religion offered the people nothing.
Nothing. It glorified the oppressors, shit on the oppressed
for being oppressed and, when it was all said & dead, it
had an after life that was so much like our idea of Hell
that it's name is an actual synonym for "Hell."

Hades.

Except for the very few, life pretty much sucked. The
entire system was rigged for the people at the very
top. People looked to the east for a religion that didn't
shit on them, and promised them a better life. The
Roman Empire finally got sick of dealing with the
constant rebellions and invented a peaceful alternative.

[felix_unger]

On 23-March-2012 1:30 PM, Smiler wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:58:48 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>
>> On 22-March-2012 4:43 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>>>> existed?
>>> Lined all up and placed on a table?
>>>
>>> There's far more& better evidence for Bigfoot and UFO abductions.
>>> There's more physical evidence, more eyewitness accounts (vastly more)
>>> and all over a far greater period of time.
>>>
>>> Personally, I do not believe in an historic Jesus. I have every reason
>>> to believe that Christianity was invented sometime after the 2nd
>>> century as a Pro Roman, Pro Empire alternative to the uppity Jews.
>> don't most scholars agree that the gospels were written well before
>> that?
> Nope. Most independent scholars agree on that time frame.

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written
vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty.
Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to
the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before
that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates
for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the
majority (though not the consensus [36]) view as follows:

Mark: c. 68–73,[37] c. 65–70[38]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[37] c. 80–85.[38]
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[37] c. 80–85[38]
John: c. 90–100,[38] c. 90–110,[39] The majority view is that it was
written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign
earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as
indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not
mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of
the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation
needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is
believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the
chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s.
Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating
the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian
and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.

quoted from .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

>
>>> ...Christianity was invented with some pretty
>>> hefty antiSemitic baggage sewn right in...
>>>


--

rgds,

Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

“If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?”

“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”

“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”

[JTEM]

Gladys Swager <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > The single strongest, best example of an historical
> > figure from the O.T. is the Israeli king "Omri."
>

> 1 Kings 16,  2 Kings 8,  2 Cronicles 22,   Micah 6

That's circular, using the bible to prove the bible. I
wasn't disputing that you can find "Omri" in the
bible, I was pointing out the fact that you can't find
"Omri" in the historical record.

What happened was that they found what they
transliterated as "Khumri" and then Rawlinson
decided that it must mean "Omri."

It took a while, but eventually it moved from quack
idea to popular idea to being unquestioned. But
it was always bogus.

And the "Depiction" of Jews on the famous
Black Obelisk? These so-called Jews are
wearing what we call a The Liberty or Phrygian
cap, and it's not only supposed to originate in
Anatolia (Turkey) but it represents an
uncircumcised phallus.

Get it? Jews wearing a foreskin? Jews?

The more you look at the so-called evidence
of a historical bible, the the further deep you
get into the preposterous....

[ThomMadura]

On 3/22/2012 11:54 PM, JTEM wrote:
> Malygris<Highlander2...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> Were the stories meant to deceive? Not necessrily,
>
> There's no doubt that they were.
>
> See, there was a very real man who lived in the
> second century (not the first). This very real man
> was the Messiah. For real. He was anointment as
> the Messiah. He was proclaimed as the Messiah.
>

Sorry - but the messiah has NOT COME

IF you accept the definition of the god to be ALL KNOWING and perfect
-than it cannot MAKE and error in its statements that needs to be
updated. So the mere "idea" of a NEW COVENANT is one the actually
requires a god that is NOT as defined by the religion

Another example - theists often claim that the "days" of creation
represent a time period more than a day. However - if the god is claimed
to be all knowing AND is claimed to have inspired the writings of the
BOOK- then a day would have a consistent meaning throughout the bible -
because the god has ALWAYS known what the word "day" meant and would
have used another word if it meant something else.

So- it is CLEAR that the messiah has NOT come -because there are a
number of prophecies for the MESSIAH - that have NEVER happened

Among them - he was to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem - that never
happened.

He was to unite the world under the jewish religion and have everyone
admit that their prior religion was wrong -and certainly that NEVER happened

ANd he was to RULE over all the earth - and bring a new era of peace -
and the end to war and disease

And that NEVER happened as well

[duke]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:16:58 -0400, ThomMadura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On 3/22/2012 11:54 PM, JTEM wrote:
>> Malygris<Highlander2...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Were the stories meant to deceive? Not necessrily,
>>
>> There's no doubt that they were.
>>
>> See, there was a very real man who lived in the
>> second century (not the first). This very real man
>> was the Messiah. For real. He was anointment as
>> the Messiah. He was proclaimed as the Messiah.
>>
>
>
>Sorry - but the messiah has NOT COME

He did 2000 years ago.

>IF you accept the definition of the god to be ALL KNOWING and perfect
>-than it cannot MAKE and error in its statements that needs to be
>updated. So the mere "idea" of a NEW COVENANT is one the actually
>requires a god that is NOT as defined by the religion
>
>Another example - theists often claim that the "days" of creation
>represent a time period more than a day. However - if the god is claimed
>to be all knowing AND is claimed to have inspired the writings of the
>BOOK- then a day would have a consistent meaning throughout the bible -
>because the god has ALWAYS known what the word "day" meant and would
>have used another word if it meant something else.
>
>So- it is CLEAR that the messiah has NOT come -because there are a
>number of prophecies for the MESSIAH - that have NEVER happened
>
>Among them - he was to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem - that never
>happened.
>
>He was to unite the world under the jewish religion and have everyone
>admit that their prior religion was wrong -and certainly that NEVER happened
>
>ANd he was to RULE over all the earth - and bring a new era of peace -
>and the end to war and disease
>
>And that NEVER happened as well

duke, American - American

*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****

[Mike]

On Mar 20, 6:51 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually

> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>

This old debate "Did Jesus exist?" is tiresome. The question, as
stated, is meaningless. Let us frame some more precise questions.

Question: Did their exist in the early decades AD a preacher named
Jeshua in Palestine?

Yes, of course. Jeshua was a very common name and the place was lousy
with religious nuts of all stripes. It is like asking whether their
exists a priest named John in the city of Philadelphia. Of course
their does and we know this without doing any research to confirm it.

Question: Do the exploits of one or more such preachers have some
continuity with the stuff in the gospels?

Could be. Why not? That emphatically does NOT mean that decades
after his death the gospel writers were accurately reporting much of
anything. To me the inconsistencies of the four (not to mention the
other gospels) indicate that their may be some basis in fact. I.e. if
they were collaborating to write fiction they would have made the
details match better. Clearly the four guys were getting their
information and misinformation from different informants. As Dawkins
has pointed out, if Jesus is purely fictional then someone still had
to write his lines, in which case that person is the moral innovator.
Either way we must postulate the existence of a person with moral
views unusual for his time. I'll even grant the possibility that the
resurrection may have a factual basis. After all, modern doctors
speak of people returning from the dead. It is conceivable that there
was a dude named Jeshua who got crucified and the soldiers took him
down from the cross prematurely. That would explain how a myth of his
divinity got started. Anyways it is an alternative to the other
(probable enough) theory that some ancient bullshit artist made
stuff. If such a thing had happened that would have seemed miraculous
to the yokels who observed it, in the telling and retelling they would
add all kinds of horseshit about walking on water, ascending into the
sky, and other such drivel.

[ThomMadura]

On 3/23/2012 1:51 PM, Mike wrote:
> On Mar 20, 6:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>>
>
> This old debate "Did Jesus exist?" is tiresome.

Only to those who want to claim that he did - because they have NO proof

The question, as
> stated, is meaningless.

WHY? - I see YOU made a statement - but gave NO reasons WHY

Let us frame some more precise questions.

US? - YOU mean YOU will

>
> Question: Did their exist in the early decades AD a preacher named
> Jeshua in Palestine?

NOPE - there is NO mention of such a person in the historical record of
that time -

THERE are mentions of many other claimed Messiahs - some that even made
the claim themselves - who actually appear in the historical record of
that time though

ARE you suggesting we consider them?





>
> Yes, of course.

OH _ YOU god MY correct answer wrong

And of course - if that were true - it is meaningless - because the
religion does not claim that ALL the christ was - was JUST a preacher in
Palestine

[Smiler]

Notice I wrote 'independent scholars' and not theological scholars.


> Mark: c. 6-73,[37] c. 65-70[38]
> Matthew: c. 70-100.[37] c. 80-85.[38] Luke: c. 80-100, with most
> arguing for somewhere around 85,[37] c. 80-85[38]
> John: c. 90-100,[38] c. 90-110,[39] The majority view is that it was
> written in stages,

By several different people.

> so there was no one date of composition.

> Traditional Christian scholarship

How are Christian scholars independent?

> has generally preferred to assign
> earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as
> indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not
> mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of
> the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation
> needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is
> believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the
> chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s.
> Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:
>
> Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
> Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
> John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
>
> Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating
> the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian
> and bishop,

Again, how is a bishop an independent scholar?

> makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.
>
> quoted from .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating
>
>
>>>> ...Christianity was invented with some pretty
>>>> hefty antiSemitic baggage sewn right in...
>>>>

--

[felix_unger]

yes, and you offered nothing in support of your claim

feel free to offer something to dispute the widely accepted dating and
support your assertion

[duke]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:06:14 -0400, ThomMadura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On 3/23/2012 1:51 PM, Mike wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 6:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>>>
>>
>> This old debate "Did Jesus exist?" is tiresome.
>
>
>Only to those who want to claim that he did - because they have NO proof
>
> The question, as
>> stated, is meaningless.

>WHY? - I see YOU made a statement - but gave NO reasons WHY

Neither do you.

> Let us frame some more precise questions.
>US? - YOU mean YOU will

>> Question: Did their exist in the early decades AD a preacher named
>> Jeshua in Palestine?

>NOPE - there is NO mention of such a person in the historical record of
>that time -

You're reading a comic book.

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>

> --
> rgds,
>
> Pete
> -------
> "No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"
>

> The atheists moral dilemma ..http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

>
> “It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”
>
> "It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"
>

> “if there was no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God at all. How could they?”
>

> "Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all. There are
plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New
Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the events,
are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient literary
work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
protocol. Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
disengenuous to yourself . Regards.

[ThomMadura]

On 3/24/2012 10:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:>
> You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all. There are
> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others.

Not one of them you mentioned is from the supposed time of the christ
At most - they are proof of deluded followers - simply repeating a fairy
tale

I note no one has ever provided PROOF that the christ was ever crucified
by the state - because the state DID not return bodies to the family -
of crucifixion victims -they were left to the scavengers.

THe idea that the body was put into a crypt would be legally wrong



However -the mention in Jospehus is also contested as well

The New
> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses

So - what YOU are saying is that there are eye witness accounts of Harry
Potter - and Sherlock Holmes too. One cannot be eye witness to a fairy
tale - it is clear that the gospels derive from each other.
ANd the Gospels contradict each other in major ways


Answer these questions

WHat were the christs last three words on the cross before he died?

THE SO called eye witness accounts do not agree

WHO was there when the christ rose from the dead?

NO ONE - it was NOT seen by anyone even according to the gospels


WHo was there to find the crypt Empty?

THe gospels do not agree on this either.

Claimed to be the most important events in the history of mankind - and
yet -no one saw one of them - and the eye witnesses of the others do not
agree.


At least JK Rowling wrote a single book about the resurrection of Harry
Potter.




who recorded the events,


NOPE- sorry - NONE of the Gospel accounts are even claimed to be EYE
witness accounts - they ALL claim that they are written according to
someone -but not BY that someone. SO -they are also hearsay - and None
of then were actually written during the time of the christ as well.

A generation back then was about 35 years - so they are out of
generation with the supposed event - and NO ONE has any proof who wrote
them. For Example - the gospel according to "john" - had at least three
writers - based on textual criticism alone

> are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient literary
> work

Accuracy is a STUPID claim - you could ONLY claim that if YOU have a
PROVABLE original source document of that actual events - NONE exists

using the same secular historicity testing methods and
> protocol.

Again - a fairy tale may be historic - but Just Like the Iliad and
Odyssey - the bible is LARGELY already debunked - as being MYTH AND LEGEND

FOLLOW this link to an article about the Head of Archeology of TEL AVIV
University - and how he PROVED that much of the OLD TESTAMENT is simply
NOT TRUE

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html

Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
> www.impactapologetics.com

WHY - they are clearly a biased theist organization
who claims the bible is good as proof - which we KNOW it is not

but please do not make absolute
> statements based on personal philosophical bias

So - it is OKAY for you to - and not for us to

SORRY - but we do not have a personal bias

NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.

[Smiler]

You call the bible a comic book?

[linuxgal]

Smiler wrote:
>
> You call the bible a comic book?
>

A very funny one at that.

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung
that cometh out of man."--Ezekiel 4:12

[felix_unger]

On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about someone who
>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?
>>

> You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all.

correct

> There are
> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New
> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the events,
> are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient literary
> work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
> protocol. Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
> www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
> statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
> disengenuous to yourself . Regards.

what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have I
made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by asking
some questions.

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

“If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?”

“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”

“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”

[felix_unger]

On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.

It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
God's existence?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

“If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?”

“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”

“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in <9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:

>
>On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>
>It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>there's no evidence of God's existence.

It is an accurate claim.

>(God meaning the creator of the
>Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.

>but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>God's existence?

Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:44:25 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in <9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>
>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>
>>It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>there's no evidence of God's existence.
>
>It is an accurate claim.
>
>>(God meaning the creator of the
>>Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

Assumes two facts not in evidence - this hypothetical God _and_ that
it created the universe.

>Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.

It's not our problem.

If he actually had any he wouldn't need to ask.

But it's a trap - we're meant to say something so he can dismiss it
saying we're just being stupid.

When as has been repeatedly pointed out, it would be something that
points inesapably to its conclusion. And we have no idea what that
would be - he's the one who knows what this hypothetical god is
supposed to be, not us.

>>but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>>man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>>shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>God's existence?

More stupid, rude question-begging.

The moron knows it is in dispute yet talks AT (not with) us as if we
granted it.

And now he invokes something else he knows only Christians grant as if
we did, as some kind of authority.

A perfect example of what makes them idiots.

>Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.

It's a standard dishonest copout.

[Josef Balluch]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, felix_unger wrote:


> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>

> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, ...


That's correct, but we can go further. Here is a proof that the christian
deity cannot exist:

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/msg/d5ea57e809148e4c



Your welcome,

Josef


Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.

-- Albert Einstein

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

Ha ha! Here are some other interesting interpretations from:
http://www.bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm

* New International Version (©1984)
* "Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of
the people, using human excrement for fuel."

* English Standard Version (©2001)
* "And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight
on human dung.”

* Webster's Bible Translation
* "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it
with human excrement in their sight."

* Young's Literal Translation
* "A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung -- the filth of
man -- thou dost bake before their eyes."

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"When I think of all the harm the Bible has done, I despair of ever
writing anything to equal it."
-- Oscar Wilde

[Michelle Malkin]

"felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...

The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by others
such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah was
at that time, the others could have been writing about any preacher. The
so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back up their stories.
Do
you believe anything anyone tells you?

[ThomMadura]

On 3/24/2012 10:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>
> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>
> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists,

And even a Agnostic - of which I am

and that
> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.

Actually - I have

THE GOD - front and center - in person -proving itself

I would accept a specific request for a worldwide event - that only a
higher power could possibly fulfill - say - the end to all disease - as
proof of a higher power - but a worldwide request could be claimed by
ALL religions as proof of their god - so even it would be of little use
by your religion alone.

So how do/can we
> establish the existence of spiritual reality?

YOU cannot

THE point is that religions and everything we supposedly know about gods
are of human origin - and human creation.

Is God going to answer to
> man?

WHY NOT - it is supposed to be everywhere and able to do anything - AND
that is the problem - when asked to fulfill the test IN THE BIBLE - of
the existence of a god - it cannot do even that one.


AND THEN - why say "ASK AND IT WILL BE GIVEN YOU" (John and elsewhere in
the bible) IF you do not mean it. THE passage does not say there are
conditions to the request

If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
> exist, would God respond? I don't think so.

USE THE BIBLE


Note - In 1 Kings - chapter 18 - there is a test to determine whether a
god is real. A god is asked to do something DEMONSTRABLE in the real
world - without NOTICE _ and without the ability to attempt to dodge the
request - do it NOW or you are toast - period.


Now - put out a prepared BULL- and ask your god to light the fire -as
the test requires for a REAL GOD.

WHY does it NEVER happen?
ANd if it never happens - why should I consider the bible of use?

The bible says 'seek and ye
> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
> God's existence?

THE reason why the bible's claim is not proof is basic - the bible is
not the ONLY religious scripture out there. IF you want me to accept
religious scripture - then it must be ALL religious scripture - UNLESS
you have independent proof that yours is correct and all of the others
are not.

THe Koran specifically says that the christ was NOT a god - was not the
son of a god - and was NOT killed on a cross.

THe jewish faith has only ONE god of theirs - the christ MYTH did not
fulfill the jewish prophecies to be the messiah - who was supposed to be
A HUMAN - of the human line of david (IE - not the son of god)

ANd of course - there are literally thousands of other religions - that
compete with yours as well

In addition - there are clear and proven errors in the bible - that a
claim that they are NOT is simply stupidity to a non-believer






>

[walksalone]

"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:H-CdnRtSprrJWPPS...@giganews.com:

>
> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:

Piggybacking to Felix And for Mickey.

>>> There are
>>> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
>>> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New

Mickey, you missed this gaff.
There are no contemporary historians that ewere not peddling Bubba Jesus.
& thhose that do mrntion xians, the above lot with the exception of the
known forgery in Josephus, never menton Bubba Jesus as a living entinty.

>>> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the
>>> events, are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient
>>> literary work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
>>> protocol. Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
>>> www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
>>> statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
>>> disengenuous to yourself . Regards.

But most people that I am aquainted with don't like weasel words Felix.

>> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have
>> I made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by
>> asking some questions.
>>
> The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by
> others such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah
> was at that time, the others could have been writing about any
> preacher. The so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back
> up their stories. Do
> you believe anything anyone tells you?

That depends Mickey, he appears to accept supporting claims while
demeaning those that do not accept his version. Some of the most lasting
& useful things I have encountered were rubbed my face by the fact that I
had been wrong on the subject at hand.
The secret, don't repeat the mistake.

walksalone who is not surprised that Felix is still around, & verifies
that indeed there are agnostic theists that can't shut up or, in his case
IIRC, leave after they said they would. They always find an excuse to
return or ignore their offer of more peace & quiet in the group. Bit
like a buzzard returning to the road kill, after the carcass is gone.
Unlike the buzzard, Felix & co. [llc] can't learn to notice when the
carcass is just a skeleton, in spite of the scent of death.


A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the courtesy to thank
her. --W.C. Fields.

[felix_unger]

Fuck you. you're just proving again why it's a waste of time trying to
discuss anything with you lot. I'm simply asking what would satisfy
atheists as evidence of spiritual realities. you atheists claim there is
no evidence, you don't accept anything that exists as evidence- the
bible, testimonies, worship, Churches, etc., -yet you wont say what
would constitute evidence (of God). I have asked legitimate questions,
yet you seek to find some nefarious purpose. well, fuck you again, I
really don't care what you think anyway, it's just academic to me. I'm
interested only in discussion of the topics, but you keep wanting to
personalize it, and impute dishonesty, deceit, etc.,.

[felix_unger]

On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>
>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>> there's no evidence of God's existence.
> It is an accurate claim.

I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.

>
>> (God meaning the creator of the
>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>
>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>> God's existence?
> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.

I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities
exist. I not asking for any admission that they do.

[felix_unger]

So Jesus (of the bible) could have been a composite character based on
stories circulating at the time?

--
rgds,

Pete
-------

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:06:49 +0000 (UTC), walksalone
<spams...@nerdshack.com> wrote:

>"Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:H-CdnRtSprrJWPPS...@giganews.com:
>
>> "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>Piggybacking to Felix And for Mickey.
>
>>>> There are
>>>> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
>>>> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New
>
>Mickey, you missed this gaff.
>There are no contemporary historians that ewere not peddling Bubba Jesus.
>& thhose that do mrntion xians, the above lot with the exception of the
>known forgery in Josephus, never menton Bubba Jesus as a living entinty.

Heck, they don't even mention Jesus - Christians make a connection
that isn't there.

>>>> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the
>>>> events, are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient
>>>> literary work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
>>>> protocol.

Bullshit.

You can't use the NT to prove itself.

To do that you have find corroboration outside it.

>>>> Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
>>>> www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
>>>> statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
>>>> disengenuous to yourself . Regards.

Standard theist lie that is actually a projection of himself.

>But most people that I am aquainted with don't like weasel words Felix.
>
>>> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have
>>> I made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by
>>> asking some questions.

You don't share his presuppositions and call them into question.

>> The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by
>> others such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah
>> was at that time, the others could have been writing about any
>> preacher. The so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back
>> up their stories. Do
>> you believe anything anyone tells you?

It's a Christian, they let others they trust do their "thinking" for
them.

>That depends Mickey, he appears to accept supporting claims while
>demeaning those that do not accept his version. Some of the most lasting
>& useful things I have encountered were rubbed my face by the fact that I
>had been wrong on the subject at hand.
>The secret, don't repeat the mistake.

It's their modus operandi.

[ThomMadura]

On 3/24/2012 10:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>

> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>
> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
> God's existence?
>

THERE Is another point - if we are going to use the bible as well

IF YOU take some paper and write down ALL of the claims that are made
for the god - which is essentially a definition of the god - it cannot
be true


Luke 1:37 says NOTHING is impossible with god

THAT cannot be true for the ALL KNOWING god of the bible - and even
cannot be true all by itself

Today I am posting a message to you - whoever you are. Thirty years ago
- I had not knowledge that I would do that one. IT is likely that you
also had no such knowledge years ago. (YOU may not yet be thirty though)

So - the power to do something that we had no prior knowledge of - is a
power ALL living humans have - nearly 7 billion people


TELL ME - what is it your ALL KNOWING GOD can do today - that it had NO
prior knowledge of?

Imagine - 7 BILLLION humans can do something the god cannot do.

THERE are also literally hundred of thousands of directly opposing
actions -the ability to do one will prevent the ability to do the other
- that is simply a fact.
Example - no being can be simultaneously the Largest and smallest being
in existence - so the claim of ALMIGHTY cannot be true - and never could

And as I pointed out - even to claim that a god can do all POSSIBLE
things is not true - I can do something it cannot.

THERE are LOTS of other reasons why the religion is false because ALL
KNOWING - Omniscience - is a claim that really exposes religion as NOT
BEING TRUE.

IF a god is ALL KNOWING - it know everything that has happened - does
happen - or will happen - and the ONLY thing that can happen is what the
god KNOWS - nothing else.

YOU cannot choose to do something that the god does NOT KNOW - because
that would make the god NOT omniscient


SO let us take a simple choice - good v evil.

IT looks like there are two possibilities and YOU have a choice - but in
reality - if the god ALREADY KNOWS your "choice" - you can ONLY do what
the god knows.

So - if the god KNOWS you will choose evil - you cannot choose good -period.

IF you were able to choose good - you would prove that the god is NOT
ALL knowing.

THE claims of Freedom of choice or Free will would HAVE TO MEAN that you
CAN choose ANY OF THE OPTIONS - so the god could NOT be ALL knowing

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 12:06 AM, walksalone (I'm not surprised actually) wrote:

> "Michelle Malkin"<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:H-CdnRtSprrJWPPS...@giganews.com:
>
>> "felix_unger"<m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>> news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> Piggybacking to Felix And for Mickey.
>
>>>> There are
>>>> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
>>>> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New
> Mickey, you missed this gaff.
> There are no contemporary historians that ewere not peddling Bubba Jesus.
> & thhose that do mrntion xians, the above lot with the exception of the
> known forgery in Josephus, never menton Bubba Jesus as a living entinty.
>
>>>> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the
>>>> events, are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient
>>>> literary work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
>>>> protocol. Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
>>>> www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
>>>> statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
>>>> disengenuous to yourself . Regards.
> But most people that I am aquainted with don't like weasel words Felix.

well fuck you too. most people you are acquainted with, and your
unwashed self of course, I don't care to know. atheists are a pack of
arseholes, basically. a miserable lot who have nothing to offer humanity
except criticism of those who have a positive purpose in life; and who
can't even discuss issues pertaining to their 'faith' without derision.

>
>>> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have
>>> I made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by
>>> asking some questions.
>>>
>> The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by
>> others such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah
>> was at that time, the others could have been writing about any
>> preacher. The so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back
>> up their stories. Do
>> you believe anything anyone tells you?
> That depends Mickey, he appears to accept supporting claims while
> demeaning those that do not accept his version. Some of the most lasting
> & useful things I have encountered were rubbed my face by the fact that I
> had been wrong on the subject at hand.
> The secret, don't repeat the mistake.
>

> walksalone who is not surprised that Felix is still around,& verifies

> that indeed there are agnostic theists that can't shut up or, in his case
> IIRC, leave after they said they would. They always find an excuse to

> return or ignore their offer of more peace& quiet in the group. Bit

> like a buzzard returning to the road kill, after the carcass is gone.

> Unlike the buzzard, Felix& co. [llc] can't learn to notice when the

> carcass is just a skeleton, in spite of the scent of death.

speaking of rotting carcasses.. you really need to do something about
your smell.

(I find it truly amazing that atheists can't grasp the simple fact that
(some) ppl are actually interested in what they have to say on these topics)

>
>
> A woman drove me to drink and I never even had the courtesy to thank

enjoy your pickled liver..

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 12:05 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/24/2012 10:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>
>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>
>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>
>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists,
>
>
> And even a Agnostic - of which I am

I knew there was something I liked about you..

>
>
> and that
>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.
>
>
> Actually - I have
>
> THE GOD - front and center - in person -proving itself

ahhh... that's my point. how could he/it?

>
> I would accept a specific request for a worldwide event - that only a
> higher power could possibly fulfill - say - the end to all disease -
> as proof of a higher power - but a worldwide request could be claimed
> by ALL religions as proof of their god - so even it would be of little
> use by your religion alone.
>
>

and how/who would present such a thing, and how would it prove God's
non-existence if no answer was given?

>
>
>
>
>
>> So how do/can we establish the existence of spiritual reality?
>
> YOU cannot
>
> THE point is that religions and everything we supposedly know about
> gods are of human origin - and human creation.

I agree. but many ppl testify to spiritual experiences, and changed
lives accordingly.

>
>
>
>
>> Is God going to answer to man?
>
>
> WHY NOT -

Why assume that God would?

> it is supposed to be everywhere and able to do anything - AND that is
> the problem - when asked to fulfill the test IN THE BIBLE - of the
> existence of a god - it cannot do even that one.

what 'test' in the bible?

>
>
> AND THEN - why say "ASK AND IT WILL BE GIVEN YOU" (John and elsewhere
> in the bible) IF you do not mean it. THE passage does not say there
> are conditions to the request

This is the problem with Christianity. so many flaws in it.

>
>
>
>> If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so.
>
>
>
> USE THE BIBLE
>
>
> Note - In 1 Kings - chapter 18 - there is a test to determine whether
> a god is real. A god is asked to do something DEMONSTRABLE in the real
> world - without NOTICE _ and without the ability to attempt to dodge
> the request - do it NOW or you are toast - period.
>
>
> Now - put out a prepared BULL- and ask your god to light the fire -as
> the test requires for a REAL GOD.
>
> WHY does it NEVER happen?
> ANd if it never happens - why should I consider the bible of use?

I'm not familiar with the bible.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> The bible says 'seek and ye shall find'. Many claim to have done so.
>> Why is that not evidence of
>> God's existence?
>
>
> THE reason why the bible's claim is not proof is basic - the bible is
> not the ONLY religious scripture out there. IF you want me to accept
> religious scripture - then it must be ALL religious scripture - UNLESS
> you have independent proof that yours is correct and all of the others
> are not.

sure. I don't believe God would be confined to any one religion

>
> THe Koran specifically says that the christ was NOT a god - was not
> the son of a god - and was NOT killed on a cross.
>
> THe jewish faith has only ONE god of theirs - the christ MYTH did not
> fulfill the jewish prophecies to be the messiah - who was supposed to
> be A HUMAN - of the human line of david (IE - not the son of god)
>
> ANd of course - there are literally thousands of other religions -
> that compete with yours as well

I don't have one. don't assume facts not in evidence.

My idea of God would be as an all pervasive energy or force that we are
all connected to. the degree to which we experience 'God' depends on our
attitude and our behaviour., - religious practices, worship, meditation,
faith, etc.,

>
> In addition - there are clear and proven errors in the bible - that a
> claim that they are NOT is simply stupidity to a non-believer
>
>

[ThomMadura]

On 3/25/2012 9:17 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>
>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>> there's no evidence of God's existence.
>> It is an accurate claim.
>
> I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.

Evidence often is not of any use especially when the claim cannot be true

PROOF that the god cannot be true - based on the claims of the religion
- Trumps evidence

>
>>
>>> (God meaning the creator of the
>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>>
>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>> God's existence?
>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.
>
> I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities
> exist. I not asking for any admission that they do.

YOU use the word "realities" -

Again - they are BELIEFS

A reality would be something YOU can prove is factual - you cannot do
that with supernatural claims







>
>
>

[ThomMadura]

On 3/25/2012 9:20 AM, felix_unger wrote:>
> So Jesus (of the bible) could have been a composite character based on
> stories circulating at the time?

YUP - and it is LIKELY as well

THE obvious reason that would be true is that there are SO MANY
contradicting claims that cannot all be true at the same time

IT was common of religions to COMPETE with each other - when the Greeks
added Heracles - the Romans added Hercules.

Manny religions have a flood myth. ANd they get bigger and bigger over
time. THE Norse myth was a flood of BLOOD. BUT since they do not agree
on the timeframe - nor the method of survival of the flood (THE roman
myth has people climbing high mountains to survive it) - it is PROOF of
the competition only - and proof of the LACK of reality.


After all - the christ myth clearly does NOT fulfill the Jewish
prophecies of the old testament for the messiah - that is Obvious to
anyone who thinks.

THE question I have for you -

WOULD YOU let a third party KILL YOUR SON - in order to prove your LOVE
for someone? IN my world that is Masochism - not love

ANd yet - it is the very basic FAIRY TALE of the christ and it makes NO
SENSE. WOULD an all intelligent god - come up with that nonsense - NO





>

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 12:49 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/25/2012 9:17 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>> On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as
>>>>> well.
>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence.
>>> It is an accurate claim.
>>
>> I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.
>
>
> Evidence often is not of any use especially when the claim cannot be true
>
> PROOF that the god cannot be true - based on the claims of the
> religion - Trumps evidence

agreed

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> (God meaning the creator of the
>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>>> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>>> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>>> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>>>
>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to
>>>> answer to
>>>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek
>>>> and ye
>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>>> God's existence?
>>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not
>>> evidence.
>>
>> I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities
>> exist. I not asking for any admission that they do.
>
>
> YOU use the word "realities" -
>
> Again - they are BELIEFS

no. we know lots of spiritual beliefs exist. what we don't know - or at
least cannot prove - is whether those beliefs produce any
experience/reality from a supernatural source.

>
> A reality would be something YOU can prove is factual - you cannot do
> that with supernatural claims

no. a reality is something that is factual, whether it can be proven or not

[felix_unger]

On 25-March-2012 2:11 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist

goddess wrote:

> On 2012-Mar-24 03:54, linuxgal wrote:
>> Smiler wrote:
>>
>>> You call the bible a comic book?
>>
>> A very funny one at that.
>>
>> "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung
>> that cometh out of man."--Ezekiel 4:12
>
> Ha ha! Here are some other interesting interpretations from:
> http://www.bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm
>
> * New International Version (©1984)
> * "Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of
> the people, using human excrement for fuel."
>
> * English Standard Version (©2001)
> * "And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight
> on human dung.”
>
> * Webster's Bible Translation
> * "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it
> with human excrement in their sight."
>
> * Young's Literal Translation
> * "A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung -- the filth of
> man -- thou dost bake before their eyes."
>

dried manure if often used for fuel in primitive cultures

[ThomMadura]

On 3/25/2012 9:33 AM, felix_unger wrote:
> On 26-March-2012 12:06 AM, walksalone (I'm not surprised actually) wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Malkin"<hypa...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:H-CdnRtSprrJWPPS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> "felix_unger"<m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>

>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:>> But most people that I am aquainted with don't like weasel words Felix.

>
>
> well fuck you too. most people you are acquainted with, and your
> unwashed self of course, I don't care to know. atheists are a pack of
> arseholes, basically. a miserable lot who have nothing to offer humanity
> except criticism of those who have a positive purpose in life; and who
> can't even discuss issues pertaining to their 'faith' without derision.

One =- theist have "faith" - atheists do not have faith. THAT is by
definition - the claim that atheism or agnsoticism is a FAITH is simply
another red hearing of theists - and is not true.


Actually - but non-believers are actually better humans that theists are
- based on real statistics

Theists are more likley to be in prison - to murder - to commit suicide
- to divorce - and to commit crime - that is from THE UN. THE crime
rates in countries with the highest number of theists is often 4 time
that of the ones with the lowest.

The fact is - the higher your intelligence and the more you are educated
- the MORE LIKELY you are to be an atheist. THAT is because education
teaches people to think - ask question - and ask for proof.
ANd theism rests on the LACK of proof of their claims


However - as I pointed out - IF you are intelligent - and I have no
reason to believe you are not - THEN think - can ALL THE THINGS claimed
for your god be true at the same time. TAKE your trusty Fairy tale book
(PROOF -http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html) - and see if any
single being COULD be everything that is claimed for the god - without
contradictions - and without choosing one over the other.

IF you are intelligent - you already have to have admitted that the
story of creation in the bible is not true. THE configuration of the
solar system in the bible cannot be true. The great flood never happened
(See continuous populations like Egypt that were unaffected by an ALL
destroying flood).

THEN - answer another question for me

CAN a BABY sin?
YES OR NO?

EVEN religion says NO - that a baby much reach an age of reason and
responsibility BEFORE it can do anything deserving of punishment. WHAT a
7 year could do to deserve death is beyond a parents understanding (IF
you were a parent or are - you would agree). THAT is why we call BABIES
and very young children INNOCENT

ANd one way we define murder is the killing on innocent people.

Now - in every population of people =-there are babies - and young
children.

IN the first born of egypt would have been babies and young children
IN the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah there would have been babies and
young children
IN the world of the great flood there would have been children and
babies as well.

SO - where did YOU god put the innocent babies and children when he
KILLED all the others? In fact - in the passover - the problem was with
the Pharaoh - and the non-royal first born of egypt would have had no
control over the edicts of the pharaoh - so ALL of them would be
innocent as well.

ALL of these are examples of MASS MURDER at the extreme - if they
happened. WHY would a thinking person bow down and worship such a monster?

NOW -I know that these things are MYTHS and NEVER happened - but that
only proves my point too -the BIBLE is a bunch of fairy tales

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 12:21 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

> On 3/24/2012 10:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>
>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>
>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>
>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the
>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>> God's existence?
>>
>
>
> THERE Is another point - if we are going to use the bible as well
>
> IF YOU take some paper and write down ALL of the claims that are made
> for the god - which is essentially a definition of the god

yes

> - it cannot be true

correct. there are so many contradictions between the various attributes
of God mentioned in the bible

>
>
> Luke 1:37 says NOTHING is impossible with god
>
> THAT cannot be true for the ALL KNOWING god of the bible - and even
> cannot be true all by itself
>
> Today I am posting a message to you - whoever you are. Thirty years
> ago - I had not knowledge that I would do that one. IT is likely
> that you also had no such knowledge years ago. (YOU may not yet be
> thirty though)
>
> So - the power to do something that we had no prior knowledge of - is
> a power ALL living humans have - nearly 7 billion people

I would say ability rather than power

>
>
> TELL ME - what is it your ALL KNOWING GOD can do today - that it had
> NO prior knowledge of?
>
> Imagine - 7 BILLLION humans can do something the god cannot do.

or rather seven billion humans lack a power the God has.. to know the future

>
> THERE are also literally hundred of thousands of directly opposing
> actions -the ability to do one will prevent the ability to do the
> other - that is simply a fact.
> Example - no being can be simultaneously the Largest and smallest
> being in existence - so the claim of ALMIGHTY cannot be true - and
> never could
>
> And as I pointed out - even to claim that a god can do all POSSIBLE
> things is not true - I can do something it cannot.
>
> THERE are LOTS of other reasons why the religion is false because ALL
> KNOWING - Omniscience - is a claim that really exposes religion as
> NOT BEING TRUE.
>
> IF a god is ALL KNOWING - it know everything that has happened - does
> happen - or will happen - and the ONLY thing that can happen is what
> the god KNOWS - nothing else.
>
> YOU cannot choose to do something that the god does NOT KNOW - because
> that would make the god NOT omniscient

no, no, no, no, no! ppl keep getting that wrong, because they're looking
at it the wrong way. knowledge does not prevent choice. it's not the
case that a person will choose to do something the God does not know,
it's rather the case that the God knows what choices they will make.
it's simply really.

>
>
> SO let us take a simple choice - good v evil.
>
> IT looks like there are two possibilities and YOU have a choice - but
> in reality - if the god ALREADY KNOWS your "choice" - you can ONLY do
> what the god knows.
>
> So - if the god KNOWS you will choose evil - you cannot choose good
> -period.

what do you mean by choose evil or good?

>
> IF you were able to choose good - you would prove that the god is NOT
> ALL knowing.
>
> THE claims of Freedom of choice or Free will would HAVE TO MEAN that
> you CAN choose ANY OF THE OPTIONS - so the god could NOT be ALL knowing
>

[ThomMadura]

I repeat MY TWO LINES above

"YOU USE THE WORD "realities"
Again - they are beliefs"

DID you actually read MY lines first?

what we don't know - or at
> least cannot prove - is whether those beliefs produce any
> experience/reality from a supernatural source.

I will give an often claimed example from theist - the claim of a near
death experience

Now - we have such claims of seeing a god in such experiences from those
of almost all faiths and non-beliefs as well.

ANd in each case - they see exactly what they expect from their belief.

WE NEVER see a muslim seeing Saint Peter - only christians do
ANd - we never see a christian seeing Vishnu - only the Hindi do.

IF virtually all of the experiences claimed agreed - that might be some
type of indication - but that they do not agree - show that they are
simply "dreams" of the human mind

>
>>
>> A reality would be something YOU can prove is factual - you cannot do
>> that with supernatural claims
>
> no. a reality is something that is factual, whether it can be proven or not

What we KNOW to be a reality is something that we can prove

IF we cannot prove it - it is a BELIEF - something we claim to be true
but cannot prove




>
>

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Mar 24, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com" <ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

> You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all.   There are

> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
> time.

Oh yeah? Around _what_ time? 50 years after JC supposedly died?

Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger ,  and others.   The New

> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the events,
> are THE most accurate and numerous  than any other ancient literary
> work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
> protocol.

No kidding. Who are these eye witnesses?

>   Do a google,

Oh. Proof by: "go look it up if you don't believe me."

Yeah, good argument.

[ThomMadura]

On 3/24/2012 8:49 AM, duke wrote:>> that time -
>
> You're reading a comic book.
>
> duke, American - American

YUP - its also called the BIBLE

GLad YOU agree

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:14:26 +1100, in alt.atheism
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in <9t8k1m...@mid.individual.net>:

You are not making any effort to discuss. You are trying to engage in
rhetorical legerdemain and have been exposed trying to do so.

>I'm simply asking what would satisfy
>atheists as evidence of spiritual realities.

And you have been repeatedly told that evidence would satisfy. Why don't
you try to offer something as evidence so we can see if you actually
understand the concept of evidence?

>you atheists claim there is no evidence,

Because there is no evidence.

>you don't accept anything that exists as evidence- the
>bible, testimonies, worship, Churches, etc., -yet you wont say what
>would constitute evidence (of God).

But you already know that they are not evidence.

Let's go through your list:

The Bible is not evidence because physical evidence shows that the
stories in it are unreliable. No supporting evidence exists for any of
the special claims in the Bible and even the more mundane ones about
history have been shown to be unreliable.

Testimony is not accepted as evidence unless it is related to physical
evidence that something happened. We know that people are unreliable and
that their claims need to be tested. No one has ever offered any
testimony about any god that is supported by physical evidence.

How could worship possibly work as evidence?

Why does the existence of many different competing religions qualify as
evidence?

Etc. is not evidence of any sort.

>I have asked legitimate questions, yet you seek to find some nefarious purpose.

Your questions have been answered, repeatedly, yet you come back to ask
the same ones again and again. Why would we trust you at all?

>well, fuck you again, I
>really don't care what you think anyway, it's just academic to me. I'm
>interested only in discussion of the topics, but you keep wanting to
>personalize it, and impute dishonesty, deceit, etc.,.

Why do you take it so personally if you are alleging that this is just
an academic exercise? I have a hard time believing you when you refuse
to accept valid answers and then get into invective with others.

[ThomMadura]

On 3/25/2012 10:38 AM, Waldo Tunnel wrote:
> On Mar 24, 7:36 am, "IlBeBa...@gmail.com"<ilbeba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>> You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all. There are
>> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his
>> time.
>
> Oh yeah? Around _what_ time? 50 years after JC supposedly died?
>
>
> Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others.

Jospehus = whose supposed mention of the christ has been considered a
forgery for centuries - wrote extensively about Zeus- as well. IS that
proof that zeus existed?

The New
>> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the events,
>> are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient literary
>> work using the same secular historicity testing methods and
>> protocol.
>
> No kidding. Who are these eye witnesses?
>
> > Do a google,
>
> Oh. Proof by: "go look it up if you don't believe me."
>
> Yeah, good argument.

THERE is NO eye witness testimony of the christ in any document of the
bible that mentions his name and can be dated to his supposed time.

ALL of the people named above CANNOT BE eye witnesses - they did not
live during the supposed time of the christ

EVEN the GOSPELS are not claimed to be written by those claimed - they
are ACCORDING to them -= ie -written by someone else.

Example =- the gospel of JOhn - based on textual criticism - was written
by three different persons.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:17:09 +1100, in alt.atheism
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in <9t8k6n...@mid.individual.net>:

>On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>
>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>> there's no evidence of God's existence.
>> It is an accurate claim.
>
>I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.

There is no evidence. You cannot point to any actual evidence to support
a claim that a supernatural god exists. If you want to argue that Caesar
was a god and Caesar existed, I will not argue with his existence and
see no point in discussing whether he or Haile Selassie were gods.

>>> (God meaning the creator of the
>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>>
>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye
>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>> God's existence?
>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.
>
>I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities
>exist. I not asking for any admission that they do.

And we have honestly answered that it takes evidence. Why do you have
such a problem accepting that answer? It appears that you hate the
answer because you know that you cannot provide any supporting evidence
and that no one ever has.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:02:03 +1100, in alt.atheism
felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote in <9t8mr0...@mid.individual.net>:

Of course we know that the beliefs exist. The question is whether they
are valid. No evidence supports the beliefs.

>> A reality would be something YOU can prove is factual - you cannot do
>> that with supernatural claims
>
>no. a reality is something that is factual, whether it can be proven or not

How can you know it is factual unless there is evidence to show that it
is?

[ThomMadura]

TO me - it is not an issue - so ability it is

>
>>
>>
>> TELL ME - what is it your ALL KNOWING GOD can do today - that it had
>> NO prior knowledge of?
>>
>> Imagine - 7 BILLLION humans can do something the god cannot do.
>
> or rather seven billion humans lack a power the God has.. to know the
> future

BUT IT still cannot do what the humans can - ie - do something that it
does not already know

AND that is a MAJOR limit on ITS power - since IT would NOT be able to
change its mind either.

And that is still a contradiction of the claims of the bible

>
>>
>> THERE are also literally hundred of thousands of directly opposing
>> actions -the ability to do one will prevent the ability to do the
>> other - that is simply a fact.
>> Example - no being can be simultaneously the Largest and smallest
>> being in existence - so the claim of ALMIGHTY cannot be true - and
>> never could
>>
>> And as I pointed out - even to claim that a god can do all POSSIBLE
>> things is not true - I can do something it cannot.
>>
>> THERE are LOTS of other reasons why the religion is false because ALL
>> KNOWING - Omniscience - is a claim that really exposes religion as NOT
>> BEING TRUE.
>>
>> IF a god is ALL KNOWING - it know everything that has happened - does
>> happen - or will happen - and the ONLY thing that can happen is what
>> the god KNOWS - nothing else.
>>
>> YOU cannot choose to do something that the god does NOT KNOW - because
>> that would make the god NOT omniscient
>
> no, no, no, no, no! ppl keep getting that wrong, because they're looking
> at it the wrong way. knowledge does not prevent choice. it's not the
> case that a person will choose to do something the God does not know,
> it's rather the case that the God knows what choices they will make.
> it's simply really.

NO _ sorry but in this case = KNOWLEDGE for ALL TIME does indeed prevent
choice

IF the god KNOWS I am going to be EVIL - can I choose to be good?
CAN I change my mind?

IF choice is FREE _ then I should be able to
BUT if the god only knows ONE thing - there is NO choice

>
>>
>>
>> SO let us take a simple choice - good v evil.
>>
>> IT looks like there are two possibilities and YOU have a choice - but
>> in reality - if the god ALREADY KNOWS your "choice" - you can ONLY do
>> what the god knows.
>>
>> So - if the god KNOWS you will choose evil - you cannot choose good
>> -period.
>
> what do you mean by choose evil or good?

One or the other

[ThomMadura]

On 3/25/2012 10:23 AM, felix_unger wrote:>

> no, no, no, no, no! ppl keep getting that wrong, because they're looking
> at it the wrong way. knowledge does not prevent choice. it's not the
> case that a person will choose to do something the God does not know,
> it's rather the case that the God knows what choices they will make.
> it's simply really.

THAT is an error that theists LOVE to make - but in reality it is NOT TRue

YOU see - as a human - I can only make MY choice WHEN I am alive -

IF the god knows 500 years before - what that "choice" will be - when I
finally am alive to make the choice - do I have FREEDOM OF CHOICE of ALL
possible options at that time.

No - because I cannot choose something that the god does NOT know.

So - if the choices are A. B. C. D. AND E.

AND the god - knows I will choose "B" -
I must choose "B" -
I cannot choose the others and leave the god all knowing.
I cannot change MY mind -which free will allows.

It is NOT FREE WILL - free will would be MY ability to choose something
WHEN I MAKE THE CHOICE - and ALL are possible.






>

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:08:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

There is nothing to discuss.

It's just a crackpot making baseless assertions and lying about those
who only want him to put up or shut up.

Which unfortunately describes too many theists:

They bring it up in the first place where it is inappropriate,
off-topic and irrelevant, they cannot put up and are psychologically
incapable of shutting up.

So they attack us.

>>I'm simply asking what would satisfy
>>atheists as evidence of spiritual realities.

What "spiritual realities"?

These morons don't understand just how many "facts" they assume that
if they had more than half a brain they would know aren't granted by
their involuntary audience.

>And you have been repeatedly told that evidence would satisfy. Why don't
>you try to offer something as evidence so we can see if you actually
>understand the concept of evidence?

Because he's stupid.

>>you atheists claim there is no evidence,
>
>Because there is no evidence.

Which would be falsified by one of these morons actually providing
some.

>>you don't accept anything that exists as evidence-

Because the liar has never provided any to accept or reject.

>> the
>>bible, testimonies, worship, Churches, etc.,

Why does the liar pretend that any of this is evidence?

>> -yet you wont say what
>>would constitute evidence (of God).

It's not our problem. HEck, we don't even know what he means my "God"
apart from something he believes inside his religion.

>But you already know that they are not evidence.

So why does he need to keep lying both about it and about us?

>Let's go through your list:
>
>The Bible is not evidence because physical evidence shows that the
>stories in it are unreliable. No supporting evidence exists for any of
>the special claims in the Bible and even the more mundane ones about
>history have been shown to be unreliable.
>
>Testimony is not accepted as evidence unless it is related to physical
>evidence that something happened. We know that people are unreliable and
>that their claims need to be tested. No one has ever offered any
>testimony about any god that is supported by physical evidence.

These morons just say "testimony is evidence" when it isn't - but the
content of that testimony might if they ever provided it and it stood
up to cross's examination.

But they refuse this.

>How could worship possibly work as evidence?

He was just being stupid.

Again.

>Why does the existence of many different competing religions qualify as
>evidence?
>
>Etc. is not evidence of any sort.
>
>>I have asked legitimate questions,

Where?

>> yet you seek to find some nefarious purpose.

A standard theist tactic: personal lies as ad hominems when he is told
to put up or shut up after he brought it up in the first place.

>Your questions have been answered, repeatedly, yet you come back to ask
>the same ones again and again. Why would we trust you at all?
>
>>well, fuck you again, I
>>really don't care what you think anyway, it's just academic to me. I'm
>>interested only in discussion of the topics, but you keep wanting to
>>personalize it, and impute dishonesty, deceit, etc.,.
>
>Why do you take it so personally if you are alleging that this is just
>an academic exercise? I have a hard time believing you when you refuse
>to accept valid answers and then get into invective with others.

It's what you get when religion brainwashes people to think it is "the
truth" - it forms half of a false dichotomy. In their minds when we
don't acknowledge it as the truth we're accusing them of lying.

So demanding they back it up is seen as a personal attack - even when
they bring it up in the first place.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-25 07:06, felix_unger wrote:
> On 25-March-2012 2:11 PM, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
> goddess wrote:
>> On 2012-Mar-24 03:54, linuxgal wrote:
>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>
>>>> You call the bible a comic book?
>>>
>>> A very funny one at that.
>>>
>>> "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung
>>> that cometh out of man."--Ezekiel 4:12
>>
>> Ha ha! Here are some other interesting interpretations from:
>> http://www.bible.cc/ezekiel/4-12.htm
>>
>> * New International Version (©1984)
>> * "Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of
>> the people, using human excrement for fuel."
>>
>> * English Standard Version (©2001)
>> * "And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on
>> human dung.”
>>
>> * Webster's Bible Translation
>> * "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with
>> human excrement in their sight."
>>
>> * Young's Literal Translation
>> * "A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung -- the filth of
>> man -- thou dost bake before their eyes."
>
> dried manure if often used for fuel in primitive cultures

It's also a popular tool in politics.

--

Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think
and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps
because of, the lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:12:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have I
>> made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by asking some
>> questions.
>>
>The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by others
>such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah was
>at that time, the others could have been writing about any preacher. The
>so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back up their stories.
>Do you believe anything anyone tells you?

So long as they tell him what he wants to hear, yes.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

>
>On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>
>It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists,

It is common for atheists to avoid the word "proof" entirely.

>and that
>there's no evidence of God's existence.

Well, feel free to trot it out if you have some.

>I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

>but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.

What evidence convinced _you_ of the truth of your beliefs? Present that as
starting point.

>So how do/can we
>establish the existence of spiritual reality?

What you mean "we," white man? It is _your_ "spiritual reality," and therefore
_your_ problem to establish it.

>Is God going to answer to man?

I dunno. You're the one who seems to be talking to it. Getting any answers?

>If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>exist, would God respond? I don't think so.

No luck so far, eh? Only someone who already believes in such a being will put
such questions to it.

>The bible says 'seek and ye shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>God's existence?

The claims of the possibly delusional carry little weight.

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

It's obvious that he's also looking for a way to arm himself with a tool
that he can bash atheists over the head with by saying something along
the lines of "you cannot be absent of belief in deities and supernatural
agents because there is -this- evidence to the contrary."

The fact is that The Scientific Method and the Peer Review process will
be essential tools in the validation of any such proposed evidence.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"Employ your time in improving yourself by other mens' writings, so that
you shall gain easily what others have laboured hard for."
-- Socrates of Athens

[Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess]

On 2012-Mar-25 10:15, Don Martin wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:

[snip]

>> The bible says 'seek and ye shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>> God's existence?
>
> The claims of the possibly delusional carry little weight.

Although many still carry tablets, even today.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"A hero is born among a hundred, a wise man is found among a thousand,
but an accomplished one might not be found even among a hundred thousand
men."
-- Plato of Athens

[chibiabos]

In article <9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>, felix_unger

<m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> > NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
> > verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>
> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that

> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the

> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.

I'd settle for some consistency.

"My God is a vengeful God."
"My God is a merciful God."

"My God inhabits the trees and the rivers and the stones."
"My God demands that we sacrifice innocent children once a year."

"My God is actually three gods."
"My God is the only god."

"My God is afraid of other gods."
"There is no God but my God."

"My God's name is unmentionable."
"My God's name is Yahweh."

"My God said the meek shall inherit the Earth."
"My God said the rich are the only deserving ones."

"My God is a peaceful god."
"My God will destroy all my enemies, and punish them for all eternity."

"My God exists outside of all worldly concerns."
"My God cares deeply about who I fuck."

You following my drift there, handsome? If there was any god worth
believing, it would have got its story straight from the beginning. It
hasn't. It's even more fickle than a woman. (and we love women largely
for that reason). As a metaconcept, it fails.

Besides which, it isn't even real.

-chib

--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:21:10 -0400, ThomMadura <Tomm...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Imagine - 7 BILLLION humans can do something the god cannot do.

Some of them have iron chariots.

[John Locke]

..good point. If there really were a god, that god would have been
clear and precise and in addition would have made itself known
to the world and accessible by all humans. Disease, famine and
suffering would have been unknown. This not the case. If here
really were a god it would be a totally different world indeed.

[Waldo Tunnel]

On Mar 25, 9:49 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 11:08:40 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:

[...]

> >>>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.
> >>> It's a standard dishonest copout.
>
> >>Fuck you. you're just proving again why it's a waste of time trying to
> >>discuss anything with you lot.
>
> >You are not making any effort to discuss. You are trying to engage in
> >rhetorical legerdemain and have been exposed trying to do so.
>
> There  is nothing to discuss.

And yet you jump in to discuss...what? Oh yeah: "nothing."

>
> It's just a crackpot making baseless assertions  and lying about those
> who only want him to put up or shut up.

Take it to alt.flame, you dishonest dickhead.


[...]

>
> It's not our problem. HEck, we don't even know what he means my "God"
> apart from something he believes inside his religion.

And yet you affirm that what he claims is "God" does not exist. Even
though you don't know what he means.


[...]

The smarmy, smug C. Lee runs quickly away from his own lies as can be
seen in the following:


On Mar 3, 5:22 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

Waldo:
> >> For instance, do you know the simple one sentence definition
> >> of evolution that you can find in most any college level intro to
> >> biology text? Before criticizing evolution (if that is in fact what is
> >> going on here) wouldn't that be important to know?
>

C. Lee :
> There is no "the simple one sentence definition"

Waldo:
Really!? And if you were wrong about this you'd admit it, right?


C. Lee :
> because it varies across fields.

Waldo:
Didn't you see my reference to a _biological_ definition, idiot*?

Anyway, here you go, Christopher, the definition:

"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the
frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the
next." -- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes BIOLOGY 5th ed. 1989 Worth
Publishers, p.974

How about that -- one sentence!

Not satisfied Christopher? How about this:

"The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those
that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next." -- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer
Associates 1986

More?

"What is Evolution? Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a
population over time." -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology Version
2 Copyright 1996-1997 by Chris Colby

So tell us all why these experts are hopelessly wrong and Christopher
Lee is right. Will you do that please?

We're waiting...

Or will you run away, as usual?

---End Quote---

----------

* Quoting C. Lee

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 25, 6:14 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
> On 25-March-2012 2:03 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:44:25 -0500, Free Lunch<lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism

> >> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com>  wrote in<9t7e6gFg...@mid.individual.net>:

> >>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>
> >>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
> >>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
> >>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
> >>> there's no evidence of God's existence.

> >> It is an accurate claim.
>

> >>> (God meaning the creator of the
> >>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

> > Assumes two facts not in evidence - this hypothetical God _and_ that
> > it created the universe.
>

> >> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
> >> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
> >> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.

> > It's not our problem.
>

> > If he actually had any he wouldn't need to ask.
>
> > But it's a trap - we're meant to say something so he can dismiss it
> > saying we're just being stupid.
>
> > When as has been repeatedly pointed out, it would be something that
> > points inesapably to its conclusion. And we have no idea what that
> > would be - he's the one who knows what this hypothetical god is
> > supposed to be, not us.
>

> >>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
> >>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
> >>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you

> >>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye

> >>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
> >>> God's existence?

> > More stupid, rude question-begging.
>
> > The moron knows it is in dispute yet talks AT (not with) us as if we
> > granted it.
>
> > And now he invokes something else he knows only Christians grant as if
> > we did, as some kind of authority.
>
> > A perfect example of what makes them idiots.
>

> >> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.
> > It's a standard dishonest copout.
>
> Fuck you. you're just proving again why it's a waste of time trying to

> discuss anything with you lot. I'm simply asking what would satisfy
> atheists as evidence of spiritual realities. you atheists claim there is
> no evidence, you don't accept anything that exists as evidence- the
> bible, testimonies, worship, Churches, etc., -yet you wont say what

> would constitute evidence (of God).

I have something that I would consider to be valid evidence that a god
exists: I have a friend, and ex-boyfriend, who lost both legs in
Vietnam. Were you to pray to your god for him to reacquire all his
missing body parts, and your prayer be successful, I would consider
that the work of a supernatural agency fit to be called "God." I
don't care if the missing parts are poofed back on instantaneously, or
if they simply regenerate and grow back on a more gradual basis, just
as long as he is one day able to get out of his wheelchair and walk
again.

This is something that medical science is currently incapable of
achieving; therefore, if it happens, that pretty much says to me that
a god is involved.

So, are you going to take my test, or not?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

Fuck you. You're a perfect example of just how dishonest, stupid and
nasty so many theists are.

>I have something that I would consider to be valid evidence that a god
>exists: I have a friend, and ex-boyfriend, who lost both legs in
>Vietnam. Were you to pray to your god for him to reacquire all his
>missing body parts, and your prayer be successful, I would consider
>that the work of a supernatural agency fit to be called "God." I
>don't care if the missing parts are poofed back on instantaneously, or
>if they simply regenerate and grow back on a more gradual basis, just
>as long as he is one day able to get out of his wheelchair and walk
>again.

Even that wouldn't prove it because it's beyond the bounds of medical
technology.

Starfish already regenrate lost limbs. Combine that with stem cell res
earch and it is a distinct possibility even though we can't do it
today.

>This is something that medical science is currently incapable of
>achieving; therefore, if it happens, that pretty much says to me that
>a god is involved.

No.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 25, 6:33 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> well fuck you too. most people you are acquainted with, and your
> unwashed self of course, I don't care to know. atheists are a pack of
> arseholes, basically. a miserable lot who have nothing to offer humanity
> except criticism of those who have a positive purpose in life;

I have a positive purpose in life, and one that makes me very happy:
I'm here to feed the cats.

[skye...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 25, 6:20 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 25-March-2012 6:12 PM, Michelle Malkin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "felix_unger" <m...@nothere.com> wrote in message
> >news:9t7dcd...@mid.individual.net...

> >> On 25-March-2012 1:36 AM, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 20, 5:51 pm, felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote:

> >>>> What evidence is there, apart from the bible, that Jesus actually
> >>>> existed? It would be strange for so much to be written about
> >>>> someone who
> >>>> didn't exist. If that were the case, it would meant that the bible
> >>>> accounts about Jesus are nothing but made up stories intended to
> >>>> deceive. Could that actually be the reality, is it too fanciful? Or is
> >>>> it the case that such a person did exist, but stories about him were
> >>>> embellished, either deliberately or not? What other possibilities are
> >>>> there? The biblical accounts are true? Jesus was an ET?

>
> >>> You havent researched the topic properly, or, at all.
>

> >> correct

>
> >>> There are
> >>> plenty of NON christian historians who reported on Jesus around his

> >>> time. Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger , and others. The New

> >>> Testament Gospel Accounts from eye witnesses who recorded the events,
> >>> are THE most accurate and numerous than any other ancient literary
> >>> work using the same secular historicity testing methods and

> >>> protocol. Do a google, or if youre truly interested go to
> >>>www.impactapologetics.com but please do not make absolute
> >>> statements based on personal philosophical bias , for, that is
> >>> disengenuous to yourself . Regards.

>
> >> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have
> >> I made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by
> >> asking some questions.
>
> > The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by
> > others
> > such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah was
> > at that time, the others could have been writing about any preacher. The
> > so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back up their
> > stories. Do
> > you believe anything anyone tells you?
>

> So Jesus (of the bible) could have been a composite character based on
> stories circulating at the time?

Sure, why not? That's a common way that mythological characters are
formed over time. The same is true of King Arthur, the elements of
which are derived from at least 4 historical characters, and Robin
Hood (which is a title, not a name), whose adventures cover centuries
and an unknown number of historical criminals elevated to Robin Hood's
legend.

The first century CE is famous for producing itinerant jewish
preachers, probably as a reaction to the buddhist missionaries that
had come through the middle east the century before. The teachings of
"Jesus" show a heavy buddhist influence; that's why the "God" of the
NT is so much nicer than the Yahweh of the OT.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:52:38 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 25, 6:33 am, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>> well fuck you too. most people you are acquainted with, and your
>> unwashed self of course, I don't care to know. atheists are a pack of
>> arseholes, basically. a miserable lot who have nothing to offer humanity
>> except criticism of those who have a positive purpose in life;
>
>I have a positive purpose in life, and one that makes me very happy:
>I'm here to feed the cats.

These pathological narcissists are so wrapped up in themselves they
can't grasp that any criticism they and their beliefs get, is a
reaction to their own behavour towards us.

[MelissA]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
"skye...@yahoo.com" <skye...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The teachings of
> "Jesus" show a heavy buddhist influence; that's why the "God" of the
> NT is so much nicer than the Yahweh of the OT.
>

Exactly! Same is for celibate and monasteries.
They came from East...

[John Locke]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:35:13 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

..but maybe not. The first thing I would think is that
that some benevolent advanced aliens decided, for some unknown
reason, to help the man out. As absurd as it sounds, it's still at
least a remote possibility. With the god crap, there is no possibility
whatsoever.

>So, are you going to take my test, or not?
>

...all they have is religious hokus pokus. They will never take the
test because they know they'll fail..just as their conjured up god
has failed them since its inception.

In reality, there could possibly be a major breakthrough in
regenerative science. We know that some animals have
regenerative capabilities. However, it will only happen through
the dedicated work of research scientists. There will be no
help from any god.

[ThomMadura]

Of course - not -

THere has never been an example of limb regeneration - because GODS are
imaginary

HE will come up with SOME excuse

[ThomMadura]

AND the proof asked was NOT about starfish - it was about humans

SO - therefore YOUR god should have NO problem doing it

[ThomMadura]

If you really look at all religions - they are competitive stories

WHen the greeks added Heracles - the ROmans added Hercules.

However - one has top look at the basic message of christianity to
expose it for nonsense

The idea that an almighty god - allowed a third party to kill its only
son to prove its love for its chosen people - is nonsense

WHEN is the last time you heard about a human allowing their child to be
killed by a third party to prove their love for someone - that is just
nonsense

[MelissA]

Jesus death was proof that either he is not Gods son or that
almighty God has some plan with it. Whole story was obviously invented
as is invented story about traitor Judas.
Who would pay to find out where is Jesus when actually he was
famous preacher who could be found any time?
Also story that he ascended in sky like a rocket reflects
people of that time. Nobody knew that there is no Heaven in the
sky and that there is no atmosphere, rather empty space.
All they could imagine are heavenly creatures with wings ;)

[Smiler]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:10:17 -0700, Fidem Turbare, the non-existent

And religion...

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[BroilJAB]

Praise HIM

[Smiler]

It would also help if he knew the definition of evidence.
Evidence: That which is evident to _all_, believers and non-believers
alike.

[Smiler]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:49:15 +1100, felix_unger wrote:

> On 26-March-2012 12:05 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

>
>> On 3/24/2012 10:28 PM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>
>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.
>>>
>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists,
>>
>>

>> And even a Agnostic - of which I am
>
> I knew there was something I liked about you..
>
>>
>>
>> and that
>>> there's no evidence of God's existence. (God meaning the creator of the

>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall.
>>
>>

>> Actually - I have
>>
>> THE GOD - front and center - in person -proving itself
>
> ahhh... that's my point. how could he/it?

He/it is claimed to be omnipotent. Why couldn't he/it?
If he couldn't, then he can't be omnipotent.

>
>>
>> I would accept a specific request for a worldwide event - that only a
>> higher power could possibly fulfill - say - the end to all disease -
>> as proof of a higher power - but a worldwide request could be claimed
>> by ALL religions as proof of their god - so even it would be of little
>> use by your religion alone.
>>
>>
>
> and how/who would present such a thing, and how would it prove God's
> non-existence if no answer was given?

Why should we need to prove any god's non-existence? Until there's
evidence, there's no need to believe it _does_ exist.

>>
>>
>>> So how do/can we establish the existence of spiritual reality?
>>

>> YOU cannot
>>
>> THE point is that religions and everything we supposedly know about
>> gods are of human origin - and human creation.
>
> I agree. but many ppl testify to spiritual experiences, and changed
> lives accordingly.
>

How does one tell the difference between hallucinations and spiritual
experiences? And, have you noticed that it's only believers that have
those so called spiritual experiences?

>
>
>
>
>>> Is God going to answer to man?
>>
>>

>> WHY NOT -
>
> Why assume that God would?

Why assume that he wouldn't?

>
>> it is supposed to be everywhere and able to do anything - AND that is
>> the problem - when asked to fulfill the test IN THE BIBLE - of the
>> existence of a god - it cannot do even that one.
>
> what 'test' in the bible?
>
>
>
>> AND THEN - why say "ASK AND IT WILL BE GIVEN YOU" (John and elsewhere
>> in the bible) IF you do not mean it. THE passage does not say there are
>> conditions to the request
>
> This is the problem with Christianity. so many flaws in it.
>

As with ALL religions.

>
>>> If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so.
>>
>>
>>

>> USE THE BIBLE
>>
>>
>> Note - In 1 Kings - chapter 18 - there is a test to determine whether
>> a god is real. A god is asked to do something DEMONSTRABLE in the real
>> world - without NOTICE _ and without the ability to attempt to dodge
>> the request - do it NOW or you are toast - period.
>>
>>
>> Now - put out a prepared BULL- and ask your god to light the fire -as
>> the test requires for a REAL GOD.
>>
>> WHY does it NEVER happen?
>> ANd if it never happens - why should I consider the bible of use?
>
> I'm not familiar with the bible.

>
>>
>>> The bible says 'seek and ye shall find'. Many claim to have done so.
>>> Why is that not evidence of
>>> God's existence?
>>
>>

>> THE reason why the bible's claim is not proof is basic - the bible is
>> not the ONLY religious scripture out there. IF you want me to accept
>> religious scripture - then it must be ALL religious scripture - UNLESS
>> you have independent proof that yours is correct and all of the others
>> are not.
>
> sure. I don't believe God would be confined to any one religion
>
>
>> THe Koran specifically says that the christ was NOT a god - was not the
>> son of a god - and was NOT killed on a cross.
>>
>> THe jewish faith has only ONE god of theirs - the christ MYTH did not
>> fulfill the jewish prophecies to be the messiah - who was supposed to
>> be A HUMAN - of the human line of david (IE - not the son of god)
>>
>> ANd of course - there are literally thousands of other religions - that
>> compete with yours as well
>
> I don't have one. don't assume facts not in evidence.
>
> My idea of God would be as an all pervasive energy or force that we are
> all connected to.

How? Why?

> the degree to which we experience 'God' depends on our
> attitude and our behaviour.,

And an atheist's behaviour is no different from the behaviour of a theist.

> - religious practices, worship, meditation, faith, etc.,

The old "Believing is seeing." bullshit. Try believing in leprechauns for
5 minutes (without laughing!) and get back to us to tell us how many
leprechauns you saw.

>
>
>> In addition - there are clear and proven errors in the bible - that a
>> claim that they are NOT is simply stupidity to a non-believer

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 3:12 AM, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 00:17:09 +1100, in alt.atheism
> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t8k6n...@mid.individual.net>:
>> On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:

>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as well.

>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that

>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence.

>>> It is an accurate claim.
>> I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.
> There is no evidence. You cannot point to any actual evidence to support
> a claim that a supernatural god exists. If you want to argue that Caesar
> was a god and Caesar existed, I will not argue with his existence and
> see no point in discussing whether he or Haile Selassie were gods.
>
>

>>>> (God meaning the creator of the
>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,

>>> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>>> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>>> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>>>

>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to answer to
>>>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek and ye

>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>>> God's existence?

>>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not evidence.
>> I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities

>> exist. I'm not asking for any admission that they do.

> And we have honestly answered that it takes evidence.

I know THAT. I'm asking about the nature of evidence that would suffice.
(see replies to ThomMadura for some clues)

> Why do you have
> such a problem accepting that answer? It appears that you hate the
> answer because you know that you cannot provide any supporting evidence
> and that no one ever has.

you can't KNOW that


--
rgds,

Pete
-------
“No obligation exists for anyone to decide the existence of a spiritual realm"

“Agnostics frustrate the hell out of atheists because they have no target to fire at”

The atheists moral dilema .. http://altatheismfaq.blogspot.com/

“It is absurd self delusion for atheists to claim that they alone should be judged by their self-defining, self-serving, propaganda, rather than the REAL WORLD actions and consequences of atheism throughout history”

"It is a sure thing that science will prove abiogenesis before creationism can disprove Evolution"

“If there were no evidence of God at all, then no one would believe in God. How could they?”

“My favourite Bible verse .. 1 Timothy 5:23”

“We do have freedom of speech in Australia, we're just not allowed to exercise it”

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent, doctor and saint and heard great argument, thought it about but evermore, came out the same door wherein I went" -The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

[felix_unger]

On 26-March-2012 3:13 AM, Free Lunch wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 01:02:03 +1100, in alt.atheism
> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t8mr0...@mid.individual.net>:
>> On 26-March-2012 12:49 AM, ThomMadura wrote:

>>
>>> On 3/25/2012 9:17 AM, felix_unger wrote:
>>>> On 25-March-2012 1:44 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:28:28 +1100, in alt.atheism
>>>>> felix_unger<m...@nothere.com> wrote in<9t7e6...@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>>> On 25-March-2012 5:00 AM, ThomMadura wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NO supernatural god has even been proven to exist with testable and
>>>>>>> verifiable scientific proof - NONE - including your XTIAN gods as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>> It's common for atheists to say that no proof of God exists, and that
>>>>>> there's no evidence of God's existence.
>>>>> It is an accurate claim.
>>>> I agree there's no proof. I don't agree there's no evidence.
>>>

>>> Evidence often is not of any use especially when the claim cannot be true
>>>
>>> PROOF that the god cannot be true - based on the claims of the
>>> religion - Trumps evidence
>> agreed

>>
>>>
>>>>>> (God meaning the creator of the
>>>>>> Universe) I have asked a couple of times, what evidence would suffice,
>>>>> Since you have never tried to offer any evidence, it is clear that you
>>>>> know that you have no evidence to offer and that your questions are a
>>>>> way to avoid acknowledging that your critics are correct.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but no-one has really answered that, as I recall. So how do/can we
>>>>>> establish the existence of spiritual reality? Is God going to
>>>>>> answer to
>>>>>> man? If someone says to God.. move this object to prove to me that you
>>>>>> exist, would God respond? I don't think so. The bible says 'seek
>>>>>> and ye
>>>>>> shall find'. Many claim to have done so. Why is that not evidence of
>>>>>> God's existence?
>>>>> Clearly you know what evidence is, so you know why this is not
>>>>> evidence.
>>>> I'm simply asking what would satisfy atheists that spiritual realities

>>>> exist. I not asking for any admission that they do.
>>>
>>> YOU use the word "realities" -
>>>
>>> Again - they are BELIEFS
>> no. we know lots of spiritual beliefs exist. what we don't know - or at
>> least cannot prove - is whether those beliefs produce any
>> experience/reality from a supernatural source.
> Of course we know that the beliefs exist. The question is whether they
> are valid. No evidence supports the beliefs.

so you keep saying, but not WHAT evidence would support the beliefs

>
>>> A reality would be something YOU can prove is factual - you cannot do
>>> that with supernatural claims
>> no. a reality is something that is factual, whether it can be proven or not
> How can you know it is factual unless there is evidence to show that it
> is?

and what evidence would show that it is?

[Smiler]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:15:45 -0500, Don Martin wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 03:12:18 -0400, "Michelle Malkin" <hypa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> what "absolute statements based on personal philosophical bias" have I
>>> made, pray tell? I simply opened up a topic for discussion by asking some
>>> questions.
>>>
>>The comments in Josephus are interpolations that were added later by others
>>such as Eusebius. And, considering how common a name Yeheshuah was
>>at that time, the others could have been writing about any preacher. The
>>so-called 'witnesses' . in the Bible have no one to back up their stories.
>>Do you believe anything anyone tells you?
>

> So long as they tell him what he wants to hear, yes.

He doesn't like hearing that his delusions are just...delusions.