Do you believe in God?

[TyrrellRacing]

Hey TankAss. Thanks for continuing to reply to this thread. I'm sure it's very time consuming and probably a bit frustrating to read what people say. Your perspective is very insightful and it's interesting to hear the other side. 👍

I'd like to echo that. I don't post here because I'm a bit unclear of my beliefs and I honestly don't know the answers to a lot of the questions being thrown around. But when I do read the thread it's great to read your responses TankAss and they make a lot of sense. 👍

 

[huskeR32]

..This doesn't mean that non-Christians cannot be 'good' people, many atheists for example are people who are admirable for their actions, and many "Christians" are/have been horrible people, but the atheist has no guided sense of what is acceptable with God. Take abortion for example - the atheist will most likely see this as acceptable in most or all cases. The Christian however, will (or should) see this as immoral because human life is sacred as it is built upon the image of God, because this guideline has been provided by the divine law-giver ("You shall not murder.").

This is where you need to be really careful about what you say. You basically just said that non-Christians don't think abortion is wrong because we don't understand that murder is wrong.

First, let's address the "atheist(s) will most likely see this as acceptable" statement. Let's avoid broad-brushing like that, OK?

Second, atheists are perfectly capable of understanding that murder is wrong, that life is precious, and of applying that understanding to the subject of abortion. And we can know all of those things without believing in god.

Without accepting an absolute moral code from a divine law-giver, morality is nothing but a matter of preference, and there is no way to decide between right and wrong. This is why a secular society can't work - without God, everything is permissible. You can't get ethics from common sense - as common sense is a matter of preference, majority votes - as the majority can oppose the minority who could be right, or from science. And if nothing but DNA decides our actions, why is it moral to punish anyone for their actions?

Crap. Complete and utter crap. I don't think I need to get into details.

 

[Touring Mars]

I will define a "Christian" as one who accepts that there is one true God, and that he has appeared to us through his son, Jesus Christ.

If this is how you define your own religion, then you must believe that all other religions/Gods must be false. So what makes you think that your religion/God is any more real than all of those that your own religion demands that you disbelieve in?

the atheist has no guided sense of what is acceptable with God. Take abortion for example - the atheist will most likely see this as acceptable in most or all cases. The Christian however, will (or should) see this as immoral because human life is sacred as it is built upon the image of God, because this guideline has been provided by the divine law-giver ("You shall not murder.").

I completely disagree with your generalisation about atheists seeing abortion as "acceptable in most or all cases". That's just total rubbish. I don't know a single, solitary person who thinks this, and most of the people I've met/know in my life are non-religious. It is possible to oppose abortion (i.e. to disfavour its use) but respect the right of a pregnant woman to decide for themselves, depending on the circumstances. Most, if not all, people of all religious persuasions including atheists agree that there is a limit (albeit not very well defined medically) to when elective abortions becomes morally unacceptable e.g. after a certain period of time. Either way, your assertion that atheists have no problem with abortion is complete nonsense.

Without accepting an absolute moral code from a divine law-giver, morality is nothing but a matter of preference, and there is no way to decide between right and wrong. This is why a secular society can't work - without God, everything is permissible. You can't get ethics from common sense - as common sense is a matter of preference, majority votes - as the majority can oppose the minority who could be right, or from science. And if nothing but DNA decides our actions, why is it moral to punish anyone for their actions?

Why does a moral code of any description require a belief in a supernatural entity? Surely there are better grounds for basing one's laws and morality than invoking God. The idea that "without God, everything is permissible" is completely wrong, and implies that human rationality and logic are at best irrelevant and at worst incapable of defining and accepting morality on its own merits.

I would also seriously question why a moral code as decreed by any religion ought to be considered superior to any other - and why any of those are in any way superior to morality as defined from a human rights perspective. Once again, morality is not the sole preserve of those with religious belief.

 

[BobK]

I apologise for my absence in this thread - I'm pretty busy right now.

Lots of people responded to my comments before. I'm not going to go over them in detail because it's pretty time consuming.

Could you guys just bring forward some questions instead? I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to answer them clearly to the best of my ability.

Thanks and sorry.

Okay, let's start with this little exchange:

DNA does not dictate all our actions. In fact it doesn't dictate any of our actions, as in, it doesn't force us to do anything, certainly not against our will.

If DNA dictated our actions to the extent you think Dawkins says it does, then identical twins (who have identical DNA) would always react in an identical manner in any given situation. If you know any twins (or are one yourself), you'd know how patently ridiculous that is.

I thought nobody had identical DNA. Everyone has different fingerprints, for example.

Identical twins do. Read up on them.

The fact that they have different fingerprints just goes to show that DNA does not control things to the extent that's being claimed. That being said, twins' fingerprints would be very similar to each others'. I would speculate that it would take a fingerprint expert to tell them apart.

Here you never got around to responding to my point, which was that DNA does not control every single little action we do. You sidetracked it with "nobody has identical DNA", which identical twins most assuredly do. More generally, I was pointing out that your interpretation of something Dawkins said was totally incorrect.

So you people are saying that Mahatma Gandhi (for example) will burn in Hell forever for the unspeakable crime of not being a Christian, and therefore not converting anybody to Christianity.

Okay, in fairness this was not aimed particularly at you, but you had agreed with the point I was objecting to.

Fixed that for you.



Actually, what we can see is that three Biblical scholars disagreed with Bertrand Russell which, all things considered, isn't terribly surprising.



So I researched your claims and guess what, it's still no evidence. Doesn't matter how long it took you to research and type (or cut n paste) stuff into your computer.

Still no evidence.

At no time did I ever advance a hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist, and for the life of me I can't imagine where you got the idea that I had. I invite you to backtrack through my posts here and tell me where I said that. I realize that may be difficult for you to do, since you seem to be in the habit of removing the backlink when you quote somebody and I wonder if perhaps you do that because you really don't want people to doublecheck claims you make.

Reread my post. All I said was your scholars disagreed with Mr. Russell.

In this particular case, as a matter of fact I find myself more in agreement with your Biblical scholars than with Mr. Russell; I am inclined to believe that Jesus the man did in fact exist, that he was born around 4 BC, that he was both a carpenter and a rabbi, that he disagreed with the Jewish elders and was crucified at Pilate's direction at the instigation of the aforesaid elders. However I do not accept many of the more extraordinary claims made about the man.

I repeat: I invite you to backtrack through my posts here and tell me where I said that Jesus didn't exist.

Nor have you responded when I challenged your ridiculous assertion that I claimed that Jesus Christ never existed. Again show me where I made that claim.

Why is it okay for you to badger other members here to answer your questions when you totally ignore questions asked of you by others?

Reiterating the above. And I'll ask the question in the second part there again: Why is it okay for you to badger other members here to answer your questions when you totally ignore questions asked of you by others?

While you're at it, could I trouble you to respond to my recent comments as well?

 

[TankAss95]

If this is how you define your own religion, then you must believe that all other religions/Gods must be false. So what makes you think that your religion/God is any more real than all of those that your own religion demands that you disbelieve in?

I'm only going to answer this question partially, because explaining why I believe Christianity is truth is too time consuming.

Basically I believe that there is a deity because of the way I interpret nature, plus because of the philosophical arguments for a monotheistic God.
I believe Christianity is truth because of the historical evidence for Jesus Christ and the historical accuracy of the Bible and how it relates to me.

I completely disagree with your generalisation about atheists seeing abortion as "acceptable in most or all cases". That's just total rubbish. I don't know a single, solitary person who thinks this, and most of the people I've met/know in my life are non-religious. It is possible to oppose abortion (i.e. to disfavour its use) but respect the right of a pregnant woman to decide for themselves, depending on the circumstances. Most, if not all, people of all religious persuasions including atheists agree that there is a limit (albeit not very well defined medically) to when elective abortions becomes morally unacceptable e.g. after a certain period of time. Either way, your assertion that atheists have no problem with abortion is complete nonsense.

I apologise and I didn't mean any offence, what I meant was that abortion is commonly seen as a sinful act and against God's will in Christianity. It's the same with suicide and euthanasia - most atheists I've come across have different views from me (I condemn these actions in all situations).

I would also seriously question why a moral code as decreed by any religion ought to be considered superior to any other - and why any of those are in any way superior to morality as defined from a human rights perspective. Once again, morality is not the sole preserve of those with religious belief.

Look at the evidence. Christianity, although you may deny this, has more evidence than any other religion (and I believe world view, too).
And I never said that morality is preserved for those with religious belief. Please read over what I said.

And thanks for the encouragement above everyone. 👍

 

[huskeR32]

I apologise and I didn't mean any offence, what I meant was that abortion is commonly seen as a sinful act and against God's will in Christianity. It's the same with suicide and euthanasia - most atheists I've come across have different views from me (I condemn these actions in all situations).

It's also often seen by others, for completely non-religious reasons, as something horrible, something extremely undesirable, and hopefully avoidable in most cases. (A conversation about the situations where it could, in some people's minds, be acceptable is for another time and place.)

So where does the secular society base it's ethics upon? Without God, why is the general moral acceptance that killing is wrong accepted while the minority disagrees with this?

Specifically, the idea that killing is wrong can be attributed to evolution. As a social animal, it's in our interests that all members of our species survive. This has been explained to you before.

And how do we assign ourselves rights without acknowledging a higher power?

Common sense. The golden rule. Human decency. Call it whatever you want, but it's inherent in most of us. And in our society.

And, as I have said numerous times before, if we are nothing but 'jumped up apes', unguided from single celled life in the process of evolution, how can we trust our own thoughts, and consciousness?

This existential crap doesn't prove god's existence at all.

And by the way, evolution does not say that we're jumped up apes. It says that us and apes both came from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human. For the last time, if you're going to argue against something, understand it. You drive me crazy with your ignorance of the ideas you oppose. I'm sorry to sound rude, but enough of this!

Look at the evidence. Christianity, although you may deny this, has more evidence than any other religion (and I believe world view, too).

Citation needed. Badly.

And I never said that morality is preserved for those with religious belief. Please read over what I said.

You strongly implied it. Very strongly. And if you don't see how that's true, then you are in desperate need of some self-awareness when you say things.

 

[loftylyons46]

The god particle yes

 

[DK]

This is why a secular society can't work - without God, everything is permissible. You can't get ethics from common sense - as common sense is a matter of preference, majority votes - as the majority can oppose the minority who could be right, or from science. And if nothing but DNA decides our actions, why is it moral to punish anyone for their actions?

IIRC, 70% of Norway's population are atheists. With the exception of Anders Breivik and his rampage last year, Norwegian society is doing quite well.

 

[TankAss95]

@BobK: I'll provide a case for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it will just take a while to conduct. I would appreciate some patience.
And I couldn't reply to everyone because it was too time consuming. I'm not a brain-box like most people whom I am having a debate with in this thread, I have to research lots of stuff.

It's also often seen by others, for completely non-religious reasons, as something horrible, something extremely undesirable, and hopefully avoidable in most cases. (A conversation about the situations where it could, in some people's minds, be acceptable is for another time and place.)

I wasn't bringing up the issue for abortion in particular, I just wanted to give an example where Christian and secular views might contrast. As I have said I'm sorry for any offence caused.

Specifically, the idea that killing is wrong can be attributed to evolution. As a social animal, it's in our interests that all members of our species survive. This has been explained to you before.

So we can get morality from evolution now? How can one use whatever is beneficial for the evolution process (whatever that may be) as a basis for ethics or morality? And alternative views could stem from such thinking, such as ethnic cleansing or killing off the 'weak' to make a superior race.

Common sense. The golden rule. Human decency. Call it whatever you want, but it's inherent in most of us. And in our society.

Many problems here - you are suggesting that the opinions of the majority outweigh the opinion of the minority, should a secular society base law on the opinion of the majority? What makes the majority's view right?
What if one person disagree's with your view (keep in my mind I absolutely agree with the golden rule)? Why should your sense, or the majority's sense, make it right?

This existential crap doesn't prove god's existence at all.

And your point is?
Is it okay for me to explain why I don't have an atheist world view, or don't support a secular society? Hey, you've criticised my world view enough, why don't you share your's? Your avoiding my points of argument.

And by the way, evolution does not say that we're jumped up apes. It says that us and apes both came from a common ancestor that was neither ape nor human. For the last time, if you're going to argue against something, understand it. You drive me crazy with your ignorance of the ideas you oppose. I'm sorry to sound rude, but enough of this!

Actually, I borrowed the description of 'jumped up apes' from Richard Dawkins. I'll give you a link if I can find it any where.

Citation needed. Badly.

I will put together a case for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ which will strengthen my argument, but again, please share with us your world view? Naturalism? Materialism? Existential? Nihilistic? Humanism? What is it?

You strongly implied it. Very strongly. And if you don't see how that's true, then you are in desperate need of some self-awareness when you say things.

I'm sorry if I did, but at no point did I mean to say that atheists are worse people, as I said in that post atheists are often people whom I see as an example. It goes both ways, I don't really judge someone as being moral or not on their worldview.

 

[Pako]

I believe there is something watching over us. Unfortunately it's the government.

Oh good, I feel so much better now.

 

[huskeR32]

I wasn't bringing up the issue for abortion in particular, I just wanted to give an example where Christian and secular views might contrast. As I have said I'm sorry for any offence caused.

You did bring up abortion in particular though. And you strongly implied that atheists don't have a basis to believe murder is wrong and therefore are incapable of being against abortion. Again, if you're not able to see how you implied that, then you need to become more aware of what you're saying.

So we can get morality from evolution now? How can one use whatever is beneficial for the evolution process (whatever that may be) as a basis for ethics or morality? And alternative views could stem from such thinking, such as ethnic cleansing or killing off the 'weak' to make a superior race.

Not at all what I said. I addressed something that you specifically brought up: how people could know that murder was wrong without religion. I countered that because murder is harmful to the human race, we have evolved an instinct that it is wrong to kill. Now you're trying to grab that and apply it globally to all morality. I'm not going to get into an argument with you over words that you twisted around.

Many problems here - you are suggesting that the opinions of the majority outweigh the opinion of the minority, should a secular society base law on the opinion of the majority? What makes the majority's view right?
What if one person disagree's with your view (keep in my mind I absolutely agree with the golden rule)? Why should your sense, or the majority's sense, make it right?

Again, not what I said. My phrase "inherent in most of us" was my way of making sure that you didn't interpret my argument as saying that all humans share the same morality. I was preemptively heading off a weak argument that I expected to hear.

What I wasn't suggesting with that phrase was that the majority outweighs the minority. Now, I think there actually is some value and truth in that sentiment, but it's not what I said. I'll just leave it at that.

And your point is?
Is it okay for me to explain why I don't have an atheist world view, or don't support a secular society? Hey, you've criticised my world view enough, why don't you share your's? Your avoiding my points of argument.

It's definitely OK for you to explain your view, but you often tend to present your reasons as fact. Multiple people have called you out on this, and made it clear that they will continue to argue against you as long as you continue that habit.

Actually, I borrowed the description of 'jumped up apes' from Richard Dawkins. I'll give you a link if I can find it any where.

I don't care one bit where you borrowed it from. You used it in an argument, it's a ridiculous and fallacious statement, and I called you on it. I suggest that you be willing to back up these expert quotes, or stop using them.

I will put together a case for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ which will strengthen my argument, but again, please share with us your world view? Naturalism? Materialism? Existential? Nihilistic? Humanism? What is it?

I don't share your urge to categorize myself. I don't know what any of those terms mean exactly, and I don't really care. Now, ask me about a specific issue or topic, and I'll be glad to provide you with my thoughts on it, drawing from logical thinking, things I've learned, and my experiences. I have no desire to allow one word to be the answer to my entire range of thoughts.

I'm sorry if I did, but at no point did I mean to say that atheists are worse people, as I said in that post atheists are often people whom I see as an example. It goes both ways, I don't really judge someone as being moral or not on their worldview.

I know you didn't mean to offend anybody. But again, I do feel that the implication of Christian superiority was fairly obvious in your post. And if you honestly can't see that, then I'm at a loss.

 

[nitrorocks]

This thread is hard for me to debate in because I don't understand a lot of the questions you guys ask. I guess it's my age.

 

[niky]

Without accepting an absolute moral code from a divine law-giver, morality is nothing but a matter of preference, and there is no way to decide between right and wrong. This is why a secular society can't work - without God, everything is permissible. You can't get ethics from common sense - as common sense is a matter of preference, majority votes - as the majority can oppose the minority who could be right, or from science. And if nothing but DNA decides our actions, why is it moral to punish anyone for their actions?

I have already explained this. And I have shown how it could and has worked. Confucianism, Humanim, Buddhism. Note that Buddhists, though not atheistic, do not believe in divine judgment, but follow their paths in order to achieve self-betterment, anyway.

If you say that divine law must be so because you've seen it to be true, then what proof do you have that your version of divine law is correct and others' versions of divine law are wrong? If you arrive at ethical law through observation and logic, then one person can be irrefutably right and the other can be irrefutably wrong. Therein lies the beauty of it.

Accepting an absolute moral code from a law-giver who doesn't have to cite his sources allows you to accept morals that make no sense.

What's so immoral about eating garlic? (Again, never going to be a Buddhist) Or pork? (or Jewish, or Muslim) Or not fasting during the Lenten season? (Christian) Or working on the Sabbath? Or spilling seed (human seed) on the ground?

-

The last one is particularly telling, as this separates humanist thought from Christian thought. A humanist doesn't care about human seed because it is not a human. A spermatozoa, being a haploid cell, isn't even a proper organism in its own right, just a DNA delivery package. Catholic convention holds that it is immoral to spill the seed because... because... because... what? Because God punished a man in the Bible for sleeping with his brother's wife but not impregnating her?

Whereas, when it comes to abortion, both are in agreement that the fetus can safely be considered a human being, and deserving of human rights. Though there is some argument as to where between embryo and fetus does a human become a human.

-

"Common sense" is rarely common. But rationalism and logic can lead you to ethical truth. See Danoff's threads on Human Rights and other conundrums. And the oppression of the minority will occur both without and with religion, as history has shown. Common sense in America is that Evilution is wrong, because Pat Robertson says so.

-

Here's my challenge to you: "With God, anything is permissible."

In other words, given that divine law can be anything the author of said law wants it to be, or anything an interpreter of scripture wants it to be, based on whatever obscure line they dig out of the Bible (No sodomy, but incest is okay? Great!), what is to stop anyone from claiming that God permits this, thus it is so?

 

[CraftyLandShark]

(1)Without accepting an absolute moral code from a divine law-giver, morality is nothing but a matter of preference, and there is no way to decide between right and wrong. (2) This is why a secular society can't work - without God, everything is permissible. (3)You can't get ethics from common sense - as common sense is a matter of preference, majority votes - as the majority can oppose the minority who could be right, or from science. (4) And if nothing but DNA decides our actions, why is it moral to punish anyone for their actions?

1. If morality is just a matter of preference and only comes from a divine law-giver, how do you explain the fact that early societies across the world developed essentially the same codes of social behavior and morality - even when those societies' dieties weren't of the "law-giving" sort? A code of morality arises in a reasoning society because there are certain preconditions to maintaining a healthy civilization. These preconditions tend to be either identical or VERY similar the world over. THIS is where morality comes from.

2. Need I point to the numerous civilizations the world over who have quite reasonable moral standards, yet are predominantly faithless?

3. I don't think your terminology is very accurate here. Ethics/morality (two different things, BTW) aren't a matter of "preference" in the sense that they are subject to popular vote, at least not in modern democratic societies. LAWS may be considered to be subject to vote, in that we "vote by proxy" for officials who will enact legislation that we support, but laws are not morality, and morality is not law. Also, in this sentence, you (inherently) take the position that morality is concrete, but what is moral DOES change in some respects from society to society by the nature of the needs of each society. An absolute, supernatural moral law-giver couldn't set down one single code of morality that could, for instance, address both the need to prohibit theft in a free society (i.e. America), yet allow it in a society where the poor are artificially kept poor and in a state of starvation (i.e. North Korea). I think we can all agree that a proper moral viewpoint would punish theft of goods or services here, but wouldn't frown upon such theft there, especially if those goods were food. Yes, there is more depth to that analogy than I'm specifying, but that only supports my argument that no single moral code, given by a single divine law-giver, could ever be comprehensive enough to address the complexity of human societies. We struggle with that even today, and our moral codes are FAR more intricate than something as rudimentary as the Ten Commandments.

4. This is moral because we as individuals, by living in a society, tacitly accept the conditions neccessary to maintain that society's existence and health. We all, at times, have the urge to do things that oppose the morals of our peers, but we generally refrain from doing so because we value the stability and prosperity that living among our peers offers. Neurological evidence suggests that this sort of behavior is hardwired into us.

In reference to your claims that you will provide "evidence" for the divinity and ressurection of Christ - please do. I think addressing this "evidence" will be the only way this discussion can move forward in any productive sense.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If you arrive at ethical law through observation and logic, then one person can be irrefutably right and the other can be irrefutably wrong. Therein lies the beauty of it.
...
Accepting an absolute moral code from a law-giver who doesn't have to cite his sources allows you to accept morals that make no sense.

Completely agree, it is not religion or an almighty force that makes moral correct, but having a critical mind. People that use "the written", generally use it wrongly, it does not make the written wrong, it just makes the actions of those people wrong. We discuss a lot about moral in the Human Rights thread, the discussion is more relevant there.

But living this is not easy, since you have to solve conflict all the time. It is easier to use the word of "the written" and put the discussion beside you.

 

[BobK]

@BobK: I'll provide a case for the existence and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it will just take a while to conduct. I would appreciate some patience.

This makes it clear that you are either not reading posts or you're not comprehending them. At no time did I ask for proof of the existence of Jesus Christ, in fact I did say that I'm okay with agreeing that he actually lived. The issue is that you challenged me to back up a statement that I never made. To quote (again):

Provide evidence for your hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist. Jesus' life is a historical fact just as the fact that the Roman Empire invaded Britain.

to which I replied (again):

At no time did I ever advance a hypothesis that Jesus didn't exist, and for the life of me I can't imagine where you got the idea that I had. I invite you to backtrack through my posts here and tell me where I said that. I realize that may be difficult for you to do, since you seem to be in the habit of removing the backlink when you quote somebody and I wonder if perhaps you do that because you really don't want people to doublecheck claims you make.

Reread my post. All I said was your scholars disagreed with Mr. Russell.

In this particular case, as a matter of fact I find myself more in agreement with your Biblical scholars than with Mr. Russell; I am inclined to believe that Jesus the man did in fact exist, that he was born around 4 BC, that he was both a carpenter and a rabbi, that he disagreed with the Jewish elders and was crucified at Pilate's direction at the instigation of the aforesaid elders. However I do not accept many of the more extraordinary claims made about the man.

Note the bolded part there. I repeat again: I invite you to backtrack through my posts here and tell me where I said that Jesus didn't exist. Because I never made any such assertion.

Oh, one more thing:

Look at the evidence. Christianity, although you may deny this, has more evidence than any other religion (and I believe world view, too).

You need to learn more about Islam; you'll discover that your statement is incorrect.

 

[Jubby]

I believe Christianity is truth because of the historical ... accuracy of the Bible and how it relates to me.

Historical accuracy? In the first 50 pages of the bible there are errors and misconceptions. One being the "parting of the Red Sea". Its less likely an act of a person that used divine intervention, more of using natural geography. The bible, and its' interpreters, lead people to believe there is a wall of water on each side of each person as they cross a large, vast body of water. Here are a couple articles to help debate this instance. One Two

If the historical accuracy of this one event is misconstrued, then what else is wrong when you consider that most of it is hearsay?

 

[TankAss95]

The existence of Jesus is the benchmark of the Christian faith, so obviously I should have discussed this character more when defending my beliefs in this debate. I'm not going to provide all (or even most) of the evidence of Jesus's existence as it would be exhaustive work, but there have been many textbooks written on the subject. As I have provided in the use of quotations earlier in this debate, it is generally accepted that Jesus was truly a man who walked on the earth in Israel 2000 years ago. The debate begins when the subject of Jesus' full identity is discussed. Almost every major religion teaches that Jesus was a prophet or a good teacher or a godly man. The problem is that the Bible tells us that Jesus was infinitely more than a prophet, a good teacher, or a godly man.

C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity writes the following to explain the importance for us to look at this character and make our decision on who Jesus really was: "I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic"on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg"or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to."

I am going to argue for the evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as I feel it would be the easiest way to get my message across. In is post I will put together a few examples of why I think Jesus who I say he was, and why he was not a false prophet or fictional character.

First of all we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Numerable of these eyewitnesses willfully endured prolonged torture (and even death) rather than repudiate their testimony. This makes deception on their part highly unlikely, as according to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1 - 17; Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most of these Christians could end their suffering by simply renouncing their faith - most opted to endure excruciating suffering and proclaim Jesus Christ's resurrection unto death. Although this may not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer, what makes these early Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were possessing was true. Sure illusions are common, but the chances that multiple people witnessing a similar illusion at the same time in which the outcome is not expected is minuscule. Why would they knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture and death? While the suicide hijackers on the September of 11, 2001 undoubtedly believed what they professed was true, they put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. These early Christian martyrs in contrast were the first generation. It's safe to say that they saw what try claimed to see, or they did not.

Secondly we have the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was a violent persecuted to the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul was totally transformed from a vicious persecuted of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and finally execution for his steadfast commitment to defending the story of Jesus. James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer and a leader of the a church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingfully suffered and died for his testimony.

Another two lines of evidence consists of the enemy attendsation to the empty tomb and the fact the faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. As we know, Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for the faith in his resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and invalidate the witnesses' claims. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance. How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Well the disciples couldn't have stolen the body, as if this was the case, they would have known that the resurrection was a hoax, and would have not have been so willingfully to suffer for it (as I have already covered). The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalised, especially following the configuration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire in which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but blamed the Christians in Rome in an effort to exulpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tactius recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Annals, XV, 44)
Another explanation is that Jesus faked his death and later escaped from the tomb. This is nothing short of absurd, as he suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart, among other obvious reasons.

The final line of evidence I will provide in this post is the use of Women as first and primary witnesses. I will let William Lane Craig explain: "When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

I hope this case has brought forward some value for thought. I have only gone through a fraction of evidence for my claim that Jesus was resurrected and was the Son of God. I encourage the reader to study more. I will leave with a quote from the late jurisprudential prodigy and international statesman Sir Lionel Luckhoo (of The Guinness Book of World Records fame for his unprecedented 245 consecutive defense murder trial acquittals) on his enthusiasm and confidence in the strength of the case for the resurrection, "I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and I am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt."

 

[codingasm]

did someone forget the 10 commandments ?

though shall not kill

because in the bible it talks about in the end of days, there will be people who will believe that they are serving God by killing other people.

and we can see that is happening, what happened to the though shall not kill ???

here is what happened to me one time, i was in church and a preacher said that if you sin and repent and keep sinning and repenting, it will come to a point where God will not forgive you, so i thought that i was really deep in sin,and so i thought to my self that if God won't forgive me, then God can't help me. well a few days later i went to church and i didn't say a word to anyone about it, so when we started praying, and during prayer i heard a voice coming from the front of the church and everyone got a little quieter to hear, and this person was directing there words at me, and said "why are you saying that I am too deep and that God can't help me, i am ready to forgive you and accept you and i am ready to accept anyone who comes to me, and call them my son's and daughters").

now i say to you how did that person know what was inside of me, in my heart ?

if this is not enough proof then how much more stubborn can you be, your dis belief is whats causing your faith not to grow

you see a person that was christian and you see he died at 60, you see a non christian and he is alive and well at 90, you may think how can that be, but in reality it was time for the 60 year old and God is being Gracious and extending the life of the non faithful one giving him time to repent so that he could be saved and not be damned for eternity.


there is more proof than you know, God gives the Holy Spirit unto anyone who asks him and believes without a doubt that he will receive it from the Lord, because that's how you are born again, through the Holy Spirit and then when you pray with it, you start to grow and learn to talk and say words that you don't understand but God understands and it comes from our heart, because we don't really know how to pray but the Holy Spirit within prays for us because it knows our deepest intentions. who knows what are God's deepest intentions to be able to give him advice ?
or who understood God's wisdom to give him advice ? no body but the Holy Spirit Knows, just like it knows our deepest intentions etc

Jesus Saved us from eternal suffering because we angered God with our sins and stepped away from him, and took his most important laws that he gave us and read them as they were someone else's, and so through Christ we became close to God because his Love for us was so great that he wanted to save us, and the only way was through bloodshed because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness, and thank Jesus that he took that upon himself shed his blood for us and showed mercy to us, and even now he shows mercy to us wanting to save each and everyone of us and wash us clean with his blood from unrighteousness.

think about it how many times have you been in a situation where you could have died and yet you are alive.

some people are bringing animal sacrifices every year and every year they bring them, it reminds them of sin, because it can't wash your sins away, because if it did, they would have stopped bringing them because they would not have any more knowledge of sin on them, but Jesus's blood washes away all our sins because it was God's will, so who are you to tell God what to do or to argue with him, can a pottery made by a human tell him, why did you make me like this or like that ? no , so who are you to argue with God. or can you stop God from doing what he see's fit, because our knowledge and wisdom are as far apart from God's wisdom as the land is from the sky. We are just people and nobody is perfect, but thank God that he showed his Grace to us and shined his light upon us because before Jesus people lived in fear from Dying/Death and even now notice how people get afraid from a strong wind or a thunder storm etc, and why? because of sin, when you repent in your sins, and accept Jesus into your life, you stop being afraid and instead feel happy and safe because you know God is watching you and is protecting you and you stop living in fear. and all that thanks to who?, thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ Amen.

i have more to say but it would be best to talk in person, but i hope everyone who comes to this page takes the time and analyzes their life and control what you are doing because that's what you will be asked about, what have you done on earth living in flesh and blood, was it Good or Bad, and then... consequences

one more thing i would like to add is the guilt that a person has when they do something bad, when you sin allot it goes away, but when you repent it comes back because you have done the right thing, and by it telling you that something you did or are doing is wrong, it is teaching you to do the right thing

God Bless You All In Jesus's Name
Amen.

people who are voting no way for believing in God, you are denying yourself the salvation or you are living in fear and maybe feel embraced inside about believing in God, but you should get out of your comfort zone into the unknown where God is, because the Word of God is God's Strength to salvation of all who believe, through the unbelievers it is cussed/laughed at, but through believers it is being Worshiped,
Jesus said I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the End, the First and the Last, and will Judge everyone by there doings (and he doesn't look at what you look like, its what you are or have done that will judge you)

 

[PeterJB]

Such an evangelist tone is unlikely to sway any atheists here.

 

[Zenith]

Such an evangelist tone is unlikely to sway any atheists here.

Amen

 

[fitftw]

He could be right though. The problem is religious people and atheists are both too stubborn to admit they could be wrong. Atheists, by refusing to believe in god until you have optical proof, you could be setting yourself up for damnation due to your ignorance and stubbornness. Religious people, by refusing to see that you might be wrong about the existence of god, you look quite foolish. See how both sides are, well, best avoided at all costs?

Wouldn't the best way to live be to adhere to natural moral law? To avoid both extremes? To avoid labeling yourself? I won't believe in god until I see him but I won't damn myself to hell and say it's absolutely impossible that he exists. He exists as much as he doesn't exist. I hope you atheists enjoy hell if it exists. I hope you religious people come to find out that there is no god and your whole life was wasted on nonsense. As for me, I should be safe since I refuse to believe as well as disbelieve. Booyah.

 

[nitrorocks]

did someone forget the 10 commandments ?

though shall not kill

because in the bible it talks about in the end of days, there will be people who will believe that they are serving God by killing other people.

and we can see that is happening, what happened to the though shall not kill ???

here is what happened to me one time, i was in church and a preacher said that if you sin and repent and keep sinning and repenting, it will come to a point where God will not forgive you, so i thought that i was really deep in sin,and so i thought to my self that if God won't forgive me, then God can't help me. well a few days later i went to church and i didn't say a word to anyone about it, so when we started praying, and during prayer i heard a voice coming from the front of the church and everyone got a little quieter to hear, and this person was directing there words at me, and said "why are you saying that I am too deep and that God can't help me, i am ready to forgive you and accept you and i am ready to accept anyone who comes to me, and call them my son's and daughters").

now i say to you how did that person know what was inside of me, in my heart ?

if this is not enough proof then how much more stubborn can you be, your dis belief is whats causing your faith not to grow

you see a person that was christian and you see he died at 60, you see a non christian and he is alive and well at 90, you may think how can that be, but in reality it was time for the 60 year old and God is being Gracious and extending the life of the non faithful one giving him time to repent so that he could be saved and not be damned for eternity.

there is more proof than you know, God gives the Holy Spirit unto anyone who asks him and believes without a doubt that he will receive it from the Lord, because that's how you are born again, through the Holy Spirit and then when you pray with it, you start to grow and learn to talk and say words that you don't understand but God understands and it comes from our heart, because we don't really know how to pray but the Holy Spirit within prays for us because it knows our deepest intentions. who knows what are God's deepest intentions to be able to give him advice ?
or who understood God's wisdom to give him advice ? no body but the Holy Spirit Knows, just like it knows our deepest intentions etc

Jesus Saved us from eternal suffering because we angered God with our sins and stepped away from him, and took his most important laws that he gave us and read them as they were someone else's, and so through Christ we became close to God because his Love for us was so great that he wanted to save us, and the only way was through bloodshed because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness, and thank Jesus that he took that upon himself shed his blood for us and showed mercy to us, and even now he shows mercy to us wanting to save each and everyone of us and wash us clean with his blood from unrighteousness.

think about it how many times have you been in a situation where you could have died and yet you are alive.

some people are bringing animal sacrifices every year and every year they bring them, it reminds them of sin, because it can't wash your sins away, because if it did, they would have stopped bringing them because they would not have any more knowledge of sin on them, but Jesus's blood washes away all our sins because it was God's will, so who are you to tell God what to do or to argue with him, can a pottery made by a human tell him, why did you make me like this or like that ? no , so who are you to argue with God. or can you stop God from doing what he see's fit, because our knowledge and wisdom are as far apart from God's wisdom as the land is from the sky. We are just people and nobody is perfect, but thank God that he showed his Grace to us and shined his light upon us because before Jesus people lived in fear from Dying/Death and even now notice how people get afraid from a strong wind or a thunder storm etc, and why? because of sin, when you repent in your sins, and accept Jesus into your life, you stop being afraid and instead feel happy and safe because you know God is watching you and is protecting you and you stop living in fear. and all that thanks to who?, thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ Amen.

i have more to say but it would be best to talk in person, but i hope everyone who comes to this page takes the time and analyzes their life and control what you are doing because that's what you will be asked about, what have you done on earth living in flesh and blood, was it Good or Bad, and then... consequences

one more thing i would like to add is the guilt that a person has when they do something bad, when you sin allot it goes away, but when you repent it comes back because you have done the right thing, and by it telling you that something you did or are doing is wrong, it is teaching you to do the right thing

God Bless You All In Jesus's Name
Amen.

people who are voting no way for believing in God, you are denying yourself the salvation or you are living in fear and maybe feel embraced inside about believing in God, but you should get out of your comfort zone into the unknown where God is, because the Word of God is God's Strength to salvation of all who believe, through the unbelievers it is cussed/laughed at, but through believers it is being Worshiped,
Jesus said I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the End, the First and the Last, and will Judge everyone by there doings (and he doesn't look at what you look like, its what you are or have done that will judge you)

👍

 

[Sureboss]

It's a sin to not use grammar.

 

[DK]

you see a person that was christian and you see he died at 60, you see a non christian and he is alive and well at 90, you may think how can that be, but in reality it was time for the 60 year old and God is being Gracious and extending the life of the non faithful one giving him time to repent so that he could be saved and not be damned for eternity.

Repent for what? I can understand if the non-Christian needed to repent if he were, let's just say, a Mafia kingpin, but I wouldn't understand it if you were talking about some ordinary guy. I just find it ridiculous if only one person out of two people who are as good and moral as each other gets into heaven solely because the first person is a Christian and the other isn't. And besides, I find it equally ridiculous to think that God/Allah/Buddha/Vishna/some Shinto god makes you live longer just to give you more of an opportunity to repent and accept his/her existence.

When evangelists say that being a Christian means you can stop "living in fear", I think it's a bit of an oxymoron - you're still scared of doing anything that may displease God, you're still scared of giving up your belief in God because you fear divine retribution etc.

 

[Exorcet]

First of all we have demonstrably sincere eyewitness testimony. Early Christian apologists cited hundreds of eyewitnesses, some of whom documented their own alleged experiences. Numerable of these eyewitnesses willfully endured prolonged torture (and even death) rather than repudiate their testimony. This makes deception on their part highly unlikely, as according to the historical record (The Book of Acts 4:1 - 17; Pliny's Letters to Trajan X, 96, etc) most of these Christians could end their suffering by simply renouncing their faith - most opted to endure excruciating suffering and proclaim Jesus Christ's resurrection unto death. Although this may not validate a belief so much as it authenticates a believer, what makes these early Christian martyrs remarkable is that they knew whether or not what they were possessing was true. Sure illusions are common, but the chances that multiple people witnessing a similar illusion at the same time in which the outcome is not expected is minuscule. Why would they knowingly cling to such an unprofitable lie in the face of persecution, imprisonment, torture and death? While the suicide hijackers on the September of 11, 2001 undoubtedly believed what they professed was true, they put their faith in traditions passed down to them over many generations. These early Christian martyrs in contrast were the first generation. It's safe to say that they saw what try claimed to see, or they did not.

Whether or not people thought their beliefs were true don't matter, you admit this with the 9/11 reference.

That said, you go on to say that because the Christians are first generation, that means they are unlikely to be wrong, but then what about the first generation of every other religion, and things like Gray men from UFO's (Ufology is about as old now as first gen Christians would have been)? This first generation of Christians would have been people hearing about people who claimed to have known Jesus personally, and then maybe had a dream about it as large portions of the population were swept up in the hype of Jesus' recent travels through nearby regions. Something not much different from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_(radio_drama)

Secondly we have the conversion of certain key skeptics, most notably Paul and James. Paul was a violent persecuted to the early Church. After what he described as an encounter with the resurrected Christ, Paul was totally transformed from a vicious persecuted of the Church to one of its most prolific and selfless defenders. Paul suffered impoverishment, persecution, beatings, imprisonment, and finally execution for his steadfast commitment to defending the story of Jesus. James was skeptical, though not as hostile as Paul. A purported post-resurrection with Christ turned him into an inimitable believer and a leader of the a church in Jerusalem. We still have what scholars generally accept to be one of his letters to the early Church. Like Paul, James willingfully suffered and died for his testimony.

You hear of important conversions to Christianity because Christianity survived to become a dominant religion. Conversions going the other way aren't as celebrated. It took military force to convert Norway and the surrounding region from ~700-1000 A.D., and the crushing of heathens was always celebrated. When the Christians were the victim of attack, it was seen as outrageous.

Another two lines of evidence consists of the enemy attendsation to the empty tomb and the fact the faith in the resurrection took root in Jerusalem. As we know, Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem. It would have been impossible for the faith in his resurrection to take root in Jerusalem while His body was still in the tomb where the Sanhedrin could exhume it, put it on public display, and invalidate the witnesses' claims. Instead, the Sanhedrin accused the disciples of stealing the body, apparently in an effort to explain its disappearance. How do we explain the fact of the empty tomb? Well the disciples couldn't have stolen the body, as if this was the case, they would have known that the resurrection was a hoax, and would have not have been so willingfully to suffer for it (as I have already covered). The first generation of Christians were absolutely brutalised, especially following the configuration in Rome in A.D. 64 (a fire in which Nero allegedly ordered to make room for the expansion of his palace, but blamed the Christians in Rome in an effort to exulpate himself). As the Roman historian Cornelius Tactius recounted in his Annals of Imperial Rome (published just a generation after the fire):
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired." (Annals, XV, 44)
Another explanation is that Jesus faked his death and later escaped from the tomb. This is nothing short of absurd, as he suffered internal damage, massive blood loss, asphyxiation, and a spear through His heart, among other obvious reasons.

Well, just because faking the resurrection would cause the apostles suffering doesn't mean they would not do it. Although I agree it would probably keep them from doing so. That said, there are other explanations. Anything from a third party stealing the body to a mix up in burying the body in the first place.

The final line of evidence I will provide in this post is the use of Women as first and primary witnesses. I will let William Lane Craig explain: "When you understand the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what's really extraordinary is that this empty tomb story should feature women as the discoverers of the empty tomb in the first place. Women were on a very low rung of the social ladder in first-century Palestine. There are old rabbinical sayings that said, 'Let the words of Law be burned rather than delivered to women' and 'blessed is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female.' Women's testimony was regarded as so worthless that they weren't even allowed to serve as legal witnesses in a Jewish court of Law. In light of this, it's absolutely remarkable that the chief witnesses to the empty tomb are these women... Any later legendary account would have certainly portrayed male disciples as discovering the tomb - Peter or John, for example. The fact that women are the first witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly explained by the reality that - like it or not - they were the discoverers of the empty tomb! This shows that the Gospel writers faithfully recorded what happened, even if it was embarrassing. This bespeaks the historicity of this tradition rather than its legendary status." (Dr. William Lane Craig, quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case For Christ, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998, p. 293)

But Jesus was already known breaking away from the traditional rules. He assisted lepers, and also spared a woman from stoning. This shows that actions like this alone may not have been enough to deter people from listening, and it may have set a precedent for Jesus' followers, to go against the old ways. Also if I remember, the first thing the women did after finding the tomb was get the men.

He could be right though. The problem is religious people and atheists are both too stubborn to admit they could be wrong. Atheists, by refusing to believe in god until you have optical proof, you could be setting yourself up for damnation due to your ignorance and stubbornness. Religious people, by refusing to see that you might be wrong about the existence of god, you look quite foolish. See how both sides are, well, best avoided at all costs?

Wouldn't the best way to live be to adhere to natural moral law? To avoid both extremes? To avoid labeling yourself? I won't believe in god until I see him but I won't damn myself to hell and say it's absolutely impossible that he exists. He exists as much as he doesn't exist. I hope you atheists enjoy hell if it exists. I hope you religious people come to find out that there is no god and your whole life was wasted on nonsense. As for me, I should be safe since I refuse to believe as well as disbelieve. Booyah.

Do you even listen to other people? Your post is ridiculous. The audience you are addressing does not exist, at least not here in this thread.

Also, FYI, it's not enough to be on the fence. Most religions require you to believe, and most religions contradict each other. Your "safe" strategy is full of holes. Many holes.

 

[CraftyLandShark]

The existence of Jesus is the benchmark of the Christian faith, so obviously I should have discussed this character more when defending my beliefs in this debate
...

I am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt."

Your entire body of "evidence" seems to stem from biblical accounts, or accounts that took place so soon after the occurance of the events in the bible that no real "bible" existed yet, as such. In the first case, you can't consider this to be evidence because the claim is essentialy reflexive: "Why is the bible an accurate and truthful document? Because it says it is". In the second case, far too much time passes and far too many people with political and personal motivations have access to the story for it to be considered truthful and undiluted - historians agree that the very earliest date that ANY of the four canonical gospels was written was 70 CE. Given life expentancy at that time, odds are VERY poor that even ONE gospel was actually WRITTEN by the apostle it's named for, and the other three are statistical impossibilities. Paul, who you cite as an important example of skeptical conversion, wrote his epistles in 60 CE and makes absolutely no discernable mention of ANY direct personal observation of the life or divinity of Christ. In fact, historians generally agree that he wrote only EIGHT of the thirteen epistles the bible attributes to him. James, likewise, given the time he wrote what the bible attributes to him, would have been born decades after the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. Could you claim that Jesus made "special encore appearances" to these two specifically, decades after his resurrection? I suppose you could (and the Mormons would agree with you), but the bible suggests nothing of the sort, and even if it did, you'd still hit the "reflexive" wall.

Beyond this, all the personal accounts you offer that are even close to contemporary to the time were written by people who, at the time of writing, were themselves believers. This implies extreme bias, and as such, cannot be considered evidence - let alone the fact that every single bit of this is classic "hearsay" - not evidence under any circumstances.

Finally, and I think crucially, we must consider the SHOCKING number of "prophets" roaming the lands in those days - many of whom had followings much larger than Jesus did, and all of whom supposedly performed miracles suspiciously similar to his. This, combined with the equally suspicious anthropological similarities in "story structure" between Jesus and a huge number of historical religious figures the world over, casts serious aspersion on any claims of his unique divinity.

As I see it though, the crux of this is that ALL organized faiths have the same inherent problems. They can only be held to be true because they SAY they are true, and the historical basis for the specific claims of each are FAR too sketchy to be credited. In fact, we can make some interesting predictions based on religions whose origins AREN'T so remote. Let's consider Mormonism and Scientology. Both make some pretty farfetched claims, AND both are so contemporary to us that we can empirically disprove most, if not all, of their specific claims. It seems far more likely to me, then, given that ALL religions throughout history exist in a shrinking bubble of scientific tenability, that all would appear equally absurd if observed in the time of their foundation.

Curious about citations for, or examples of, anything I've described? Let me know, and they'll be forthcoming.

 

[Encyclopedia]

He could be right though. The problem is religious people and atheists are both too stubborn to admit they could be wrong. Atheists, by refusing to believe in god until you have optical proof, you could be setting yourself up for damnation due to your ignorance and stubbornness. Religious people, by refusing to see that you might be wrong about the existence of god, you look quite foolish. See how both sides are, well, best avoided at all costs?

Wouldn't the best way to live be to adhere to natural moral law? To avoid both extremes? To avoid labeling yourself? I won't believe in god until I see him but I won't damn myself to hell and say it's absolutely impossible that he exists. He exists as much as he doesn't exist. I hope you atheists enjoy hell if it exists. I hope you religious people come to find out that there is no god and your whole life was wasted on nonsense. As for me, I should be safe since I refuse to believe as well as disbelieve. Booyah.

Then you ARE an atheist since you lack belief. Lack of belief in god = Atheist. It's got nothing to do with what it would take for you to change it.
Atheism isn't about knowing there is no god. It's about not believing. Sure there are atheists might claim to know, just as some theists do, but that's not the meaning of the words. I think you'll find that most atheist don't rule out the possibility of a god completely, but just see it as incredibly unlikely (my view at least.)

Theism: Belief there is a god .
Atheism: No belief.
It is really quite simple.

Neither means knowing.
I do share you annoyance with the ones who claim they do though. 👍

 

[Jet Badger]

If there is a god, there's only one. And all of the religions are a complete non-sense. Let's take the most popular one - I refuse to believe in things that some high on wine drunktard made up couple thousand years ago. Splitting water? *magic* resurrection? Yeah, right. Same with all the other ones. All that religions gave to the world is wars and fake hopes. I believe in what I can see, others like to have imaginary friends that are supposed to forgive their sins and take goats as sacrifices. There's probably even an Iphone app for that. I would probably offend some people if I'd say that believing in religion is a sign of stupidity, so I won't.

So I make a presumtion that something, that most would call "god" may exist - I chose "Maybe" in the poll. Though religions are only someones sphere of influence. It's always nice to have a group of people that will believe in anything you say.

 

[BobK]

here is what happened to me one time, i was in church and a preacher said that if you sin and repent and keep sinning and repenting, it will come to a point where God will not forgive you, so i thought that i was really deep in sin,and so i thought to my self that if God won't forgive me, then God can't help me. well a few days later i went to church and i didn't say a word to anyone about it, so when we started praying, and during prayer i heard a voice coming from the front of the church and everyone got a little quieter to hear, and this person was directing there words at me, and said "why are you saying that I am too deep and that God can't help me, i am ready to forgive you and accept you and i am ready to accept anyone who comes to me, and call them my son's and daughters").

now i say to you how did that person know what was inside of me, in my heart ?

Given that the religion fosters so much guilt on its practitioners, I'd say that probably one third of the congregation was thinking the same thing, so it would have been a pretty easy call to make.

if this is not enough proof then how much more stubborn can you be, your dis belief is whats causing your faith not to grow

Well, duh!