Disapproving Creation: Why Believe in Jesus When There's No Evidence?

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 25, 2012, 10:13:58 PM8/25/12

to

On Aug 21, 12:12 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins.
God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal
life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my
experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.

Go ahead and post your objective independent evidence or your positive
scientific evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working
son of a god as depicted in the Bible New Testament and if it's
sufficient, I'll believe.

But I will not be convinced by vacuous, mindlessly proselytizing cowards
who RUN every time they're asked for such evidence. That behavior serves
only to contribute very powerfully to my disbelief.

Budikka

Andrew

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 3:43:20 AM8/26/12

to

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k1c0p6$ulc$1...@dont-email.me...

> On Aug 21, 12:12 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins.
> God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal
> life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my
> experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
>
> Go ahead and post your objective independent evidence or your positive
> scientific evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working
> son of a god as depicted in the Bible New Testament and if it's sufficient,
> I'll believe.

The devils believe also, so you need to make Him the Lord
of your life, rather than just *believe* on an intellectual level.

As to evidence that Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible New
Testament ever was, this was very recently provided by you
in the link that you provided for us all right here (below):

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
> many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
> http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=

The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.

Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
atheist friend, Budikka!

Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.

The blood stains on the Shroud are genuine; and the image
is not the result of an applied pigment by an artist. This is
all confirmed by evidence supplied by our friend Budikka.

The truth only shines more clearly as the enemies thereof
foolishly battle against it. It remains, as here illustrated by
Budikka.

Thanks Budikka, for bringing to us evidence of the great
sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for us, that
we may share the glories of eternity with Him forever and
ever. Amen, and amen.

From the above cite brought to us by our friend, Budikka:

"The visible image on the Shroud does not appear to be the
work of an artist in an eye/brain/hand coordination sense"
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?id=27642

"it is concluded that the image is the result of some cellulose
oxidation-dehydration reaction rather than an applied pigment.
The application or transfer mechanism of the image onto the
cloth is still not known..Available data from the "blood" areas
are considered and the results show these to be blood stains.''
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267001852636

"By spectroscopic and chemical tests (conversion of heme to a
porphyrin), we have identified the presence of blood in the alleged
blood areas of the Shroud of Turin."
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-19-16-2742

"The chemistry of the various stains and images on the Shroud
of Turin is presented. The chemical conclusions were drawn
from all the data and observations, both physical and chemical,
collected by direct investigation of the Shroud in 1978. The
conclusions are that the body image is made up of yellowed
surface fibrils of the linen that are at more advanced stages of
degradation than the non-image linen. The chromophore is a
conjugated carbonyl. No evidence was found in the body image
of any added substances that could have contributed to the
yellow color of the fibrils that form the image. The blood
images on the cloth are made of blood. The data, taken together,
do not support the hypothesis that the images on the Shroud
are due to an artist."
http://www.bcin.ca/Interface/openbcin.cgi?submit=submit&Chinkey=77771

Andrew

linuxgal

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 9:17:22 AM8/26/12

to

Andrew wrote:

> The devils believe also, so you need to make Him the Lord
> of your life, rather than just *believe* on an intellectual level.

Figments believing in other figments. Wooo, I better get on board.

--
Need a spiritual home? Consider joining us at Mary Queen of the Universe
Latter-day Buddhislamic Free Will Christian UFO Synagogue of Vishnu

http://www.cleanposts.com

Free Lunch

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 10:22:29 AM8/26/12

to

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:43:20 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:k1c0p6$ulc$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Aug 21, 12:12 pm, saturn_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>> Believe in Jesus, the son of the God, who died on cross for our sins.
>> God wants that the one who believe in His son, Jesus, would have eternal
>> life in paradise after death. I can assure that He is real because of my
>> experience and if you believe in Him, you will feel better.
>>
>> Go ahead and post your objective independent evidence or your positive
>> scientific evidence that there ever was a Jesus Christ, miracle-working
>> son of a god as depicted in the Bible New Testament and if it's sufficient,
>> I'll believe.
>
>The devils believe also, so you need to make Him the Lord
>of your life, rather than just *believe* on an intellectual level.

Repeating your favorite lines from Harry Potter is not an argument.

>
>As to evidence that Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible New
>Testament ever was, this was very recently provided by you
>in the link that you provided for us all right here (below):
>
>"Budikka666" wrote in message news:775af19a-f254-44cb...@z3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> As revealed by Google scholar, professional peer reviewed science has
>> many times confirmed that the fake shroud is at best a FRAUD:
>> http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=Shroud+turin&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C44&as_sdtp=
>
>The evidence is here folks, for those who seek the truth.
>
>Presented with much vehemence by none other than our
>atheist friend, Budikka!
>
>Evidence that the Shroud is the genuine image of a man
>scourged and crucified as described in the four Gospels.

The evidence that it was a fake is evidence that it is genuine?

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 12:36:26 PM8/26/12

to

I see you (and Jason) RAN like the vacuous and hypocritical little
juvenile coward you are from my challenges here:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7b3815e076a55ed1?hl=en

Let me once again remind everyone that you have *already* denied
Christ thrice. Here are your denials documented for everyone to see:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

I know you don't have the first clue what 'documented' means since all
you can do is post shrill LIES that your opponent proved your case, so
let's put YOU ON THE SPOT. Again.

Let's you and me formally debate the scientific evidence right here in
this thread. Post your five best items of *positive* *scientific*
*evidence* supporting your shroud claim with a brief summary for each
explaining intelligibly why it supports your claim and no others.

Alternatively, let's you and me formally debate the positive
scientific evidence or the independent objective evidence for the
existence, which you assert in this thread, of Jesus Christ, miracle-
working son of a god as depicted in the Bible New Testament riight
here in this thread.

Choose either or both options and in each case, post your five best
items of *positive* *scientific* *evidence* or. in the case of yoru
jesus assertion, of independent objective evidence supporting your
claim, with a brief summary for each explaining intelligibly what the
evidence is and *why* it supports your claim better than any other
position, and I will show you how appallingly wrong, juvenile,
ignorant,dishonest, and misinformed you are.

Before you RUN and hide behind your cowardly and transparent LIE that
I have not defined what I will accept, here it is spelled out.

'Scientific evidence' means that it's published in a professional,
peer-reviewed, recognized science publication. 'Positive' means that
it directly supports your claim and that *your claim* for it is the
*best* explanation for the evidence. That's what *you* need to
summarize: what the evidence is and *why* your claim is the *best*
explanation for that evidence.

Independent objective evidence means reliable testimony - that does
not come from the Bible itself - that supports the existence of a
miracle-working son of a god as depicted in the NT.

Or you can do what you always do, and show everyone in each of these
three news groups what a wonderfully clean pair of heels you have,
thereby openly admittign to everyone that YOU LIED.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 27, 2012, 7:46:07 PM8/27/12

to

On Aug 26, 11:36 am, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I see you (and Jason) RAN like the vacuous and hypocritical little
> juvenile coward you are from my challenges here:https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7b3815e076a55ed1?hl=en
>
> Let me once again remind everyone that you have *already* denied

> Christ thrice. Here are your denials documented for everyone to see:http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wnhttp://tinyurl.com/74h455ehttp://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Day two and Andrew-a-Blank is still running like diarrhea, denying
Christ in the process. No surprises there.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 28, 2012, 8:05:48 PM8/28/12

to

Day three and Andrew-a-Blank is still running like diarrhea, denying

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 29, 2012, 5:53:36 PM8/29/12

to

Andrew-a-Blank shrinking away like a limp Peter at the passion is a
common sight in atheist newsgroups.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 30, 2012, 5:46:00 PM8/30/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Aug 31, 2012, 2:55:41 PM8/31/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 1, 2012, 12:08:06 PM9/1/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 7:14:46 AM9/2/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 2, 2012, 12:56:05 PM9/2/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake
omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in
science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your
credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 3, 2012, 6:30:47 PM9/3/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 4, 2012, 9:06:44 PM9/4/12

to

Andrew

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 4:21:19 AM9/5/12

to

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:c9b376e9-76af-4fea...@a19g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
> debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your fake
> omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
> vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in
> science.

If you simply ignore the peer reviewed science papers that were presented
(at your request) which refute your C14 conclusion error, then it is clear
that you would do so also in any formal debate....if they showed that your
position was in error, which it is.

> Thanks for your free and unconditional admission.

You're welcome.

> Your credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot
> to death.

Rather, one's credibility is "shot to death" when they ignore scientific
evidence that refutes their position, which you have done.

> Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running
> now.

You are the one "running" by ignoring evidence that exposes your
false position.

> Budikka

Since you cannot fight against the truth, why not cease your
rebellion and accept the science that exposes your delusion?

Andrew

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 5, 2012, 4:41:17 PM9/5/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you
are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based

in science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 6, 2012, 6:31:48 PM9/6/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you
are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based

in science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 7, 2012, 8:52:55 PM9/7/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your
fake omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you
are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based

in science. Thanks for your free and unconditional admission. Your

credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot to
death.

Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running now.

Budikka

Andrew

unread,

Sep 7, 2012, 9:03:29 PM9/7/12

to

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:54d74a0b-9fbc-4589...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

> You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion:
> will you debate me or not, answer yes or no,

Why? If you refuse to acknowledge peer-reviewed published papers
that expose your false position, as you have done, then it is obvious
that you have no interest in the truth.

Andrew

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 8, 2012, 4:17:45 PM9/8/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you

Andrew

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 3:45:41 AM9/9/12

to

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:8cf4f967-484a-47d5...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

> You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion: will you
> debate me or not, answer yes or no, and your lack of faith in your fake
> omnipotent creator god caused you to RUN rather than admit you are a
> vacuous coward who would be destroyed in a formal debate based in
> science.

If you simply ignore the peer reviewed science papers that were presented
(at your request) which refute your C14 conclusion error, then it is clear
that you would do so also in any formal debate....if they showed that your
position was in error, which it is.

> Thanks for your free and unconditional admission.

You're welcome.

> Your credibility never was viable but now it has been publicly shot
> to death.

Rather, one's credibility is "shot to death" when they ignore scientific
evidence that refutes their position, which you have done.

> Thank you for your cooperation. You can go back to your running
> now.

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 7:24:27 AM9/9/12

to

On Sunday, 26 August 2012 08:43:20 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:k1c0p6$ulc$1...@dont-email.me...

Trouble with trying to get Internet info on the Shroud is that the serious scientific studies are almost all published in scientific journals so that no more than an abstract is available to non-subscribers.

The only articles avaialable to the casual reader are populist ones, which are generally paid for by vested interests.

I suspect that most of the popular magazines would be rather reluctant to post articles likely to upset a substantial number of readers, even more so newspapers.

Holy relics have always been great earners, and though their value has been somewhat diminished recently they still bring the punters in.

People naturally underestimate both the ingenuity, and the amount of effort that the medieval relics industry was prepared to expend. The rewards for producing something like the shroud would have been enormous. We like to believe our ancestors both stupid and innocent, it gives us a sense of progress.

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 12:12:57 PM9/9/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple queastion:
will you debate me or not, answer yes or no

and your lack of faith in your fake omnipotent creator god caused you
to RUN
rather than admit you are a vacuous coward who would be destroyed
in a formal debate based in science.

Now the entire Usenet knows what a vacuous, faithless, little lying
coward you are.

Everyone knows that, when it got right down to the wire, you proved
yourself
a coward who DENIED CHRIST like the limp Peter you are.

Budikka

Ralph

unread,

Sep 9, 2012, 7:25:46 PM9/9/12

to

Peer-reviewed papers???? It would appear that you need a better class of
peers:-))).

Ken

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 4:25:32 PM9/10/12

to

On Sep 9, 12:44 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote this
shit:
One's credibility is "shot to death" when one ignore scientific
evidence that refutes their position, which I have done.

Yeah we know, Fool

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 10, 2012, 7:32:44 PM9/10/12

to

You were asked for a one word answer to one simple question:

will you debate me or not, answer yes or no

and your lack of faith in your fake omnipotent creator god caused you
to RUN rather than admit you are a vacuous coward who would be
destroyed in a formal debate based in science.

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 11, 2012, 5:00:44 PM9/11/12

to

http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&

Budikka

Andrew

unread,

Sep 12, 2012, 3:39:06 AM9/12/12

to

Careful folks. If you deny Christ, Budikka will make a note of it - and report you.

Jeanne Douglas

unread,

Sep 12, 2012, 4:20:28 AM9/12/12

to

In article <JeadnR0HH6Mgps3N...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> Careful folks. If you deny Christ, Budikka will make a note of it - and
> report you.

To whom?

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 13, 2012, 4:44:32 PM9/13/12

to

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ef8eb81b42941cee?hl=en

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 14, 2012, 12:19:17 PM9/14/12

to

Given the chance to formally debate the existence of Jesus Christ,
miracle-working son of a god, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-
Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!

End of story.

Budikka

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 15, 2012, 7:04:47 PM9/15/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 16, 2012, 9:49:14 AM9/16/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 18, 2012, 4:57:21 PM9/18/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 21, 2012, 7:16:08 PM9/21/12

to

Budikka666

unread,

Sep 24, 2012, 5:07:32 PM9/24/12

to

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by

turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the

existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not

support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly

admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not

support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly

admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by

turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in

*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:

http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:

End of Story.

End of Andrew-a-Blank's pathetic little fake god

Budikka