Questions for the religous

Photizo said:
Kindly elaborate as to HOW YOU KNOW Jesus never existed.
Click to expand...

Lots of guys named Jesus have existed. I went to school with one. I helped one with his computer a month or two ago. Since the name, or its Aramaic variant, go back to Roman times, it is completely unremarkable to imagine there were any number of Jesuses alive then as well.

So it is entirely possible that there was a Jesus or two or three who were used as the basis of the biblical tales. Probably at least two given the big gap in the middle.

So the next thing is could the stories be true? The answer is of course no. We now have a pretty good understanding of how things work and the stories in the bible are obviously myths and not actually possible. This is backed up by the numerous errors and inconsistencies and by how the tale grows more fanciful as it is told.

Its just a book of Jewish myths and propaganda much like the Iliad or the Upanishads. This is so obvious that it is an amazing testimony to early indoctrination that any one can stand to pretend they "believe." A living testimony to the error of group think.
 
(Q) said:
The possibility that Jesus existed, based on the evidence is infinitesimally small, as we can only account it from scriptures, while the probability of his existence, based on the description from scriptures is unequivocally impossible.
Click to expand...

So... this is your explanation as to HOW you KNOW Jesus never existed?
 
swarm said:
Lots of guys named Jesus have existed. I went to school with one. I helped one with his computer a month or two ago. Since the name, or its Aramaic variant, go back to Roman times, it is completely unremarkable to imagine there were any number of Jesuses alive then as well.

So it is entirely possible that there was a Jesus or two or three who were used as the basis of the biblical tales. Probably at least two given the big gap in the middle.

So the next thing is could the stories be true? The answer is of course no. We now have a pretty good understanding of how things work and the stories in the bible are obviously myths and not actually possible. This is backed up by the numerous errors and inconsistencies and by how the tale grows more fanciful as it is told.

Its just a book of Jewish myths and propaganda much like the Iliad or the Upanishads. This is so obvious that it is an amazing testimony to early indoctrination that any one can stand to pretend they "believe." A living testimony to the error of group think.
Click to expand...

"completely unremarkable" describes the 'content' of your post to a tee...now, REMARKABLE would be a cogent explanation by 'Q' as to HOW he KNOWS Jesus never existed. I would think it a small thing for him to provide such an explanation.
 
Last edited:
(Q) said:
I would question his decision to study philosophy. Where did that come from?
Click to expand...
My previous response to this was deleted. I presume it was judged to be a personal attack. I would certainly question that judgement. It was not an attack, it was a set of observations. Here they are again.

You question his decision to study philosopy.
This implies you have a very dim view of the value of philosophy.
I am unaware of more than a tiny minority of 'deep thinkers' who question the value of philosphy. (This is not the logical fallacy, appeal to authority, but a simple observation that philosophy is valued by the same people who value and contribute to science.)

So, you seemingly fit into this minority of thinkers who fail to appreciate the enormous value of philosophy.

This now fully explains to me the content, tenor, direction and ethos of nearly every post of yours I have read. I can understand how someone who has deliberately blinded themselves in one eye would have trouble with depth perception.

This insight is especially valuable since it means I need no longer waste time trying to make sense of your posts. I now return you to ignore.

I am also sending you this message by pm in case it also gets deleted.
 
Norsefire said:
The ultimate question of "if there's a god, where is he?" has not been answered.
Click to expand...

lol, if you ask my 4 year old sister she'll tell you "in the sky"..lool we even usually ask her that so when she points up we tickle her, now she points up with her arms down.:D.

um, i don't know how to phrase this, but how does that matter? why is it relevant? why does it bother you?
 
If you want me to believe it, it is relevant; I can't believe in something that I cannot sense in some way. A book is not enough for me, sorry.
 
Ophiolite said:
You don't believe in quarks?
Or alkali metasomatism?
You poor bastard.
Click to expand...

Those are different. I don't necessarily mean with the naked eye; I mean, able to sense in some way. With what you mentioned scientists are able to come to such conclusions based on observable phenomenon.

At any rate you can't possibly be comparing that to angels and demons
 
It's going to be up to God whether or not he's going to allow people from other religions into heaven. He is a merciful God and vengeance is his at the end. But the religion of God is Christianity and the Son of God was Christ. There is a scientific explanation for all, so those who choose to believe evolution as a proof of Christianity being false is making an error of nescience. There Will Be Blood. So look to Him.
 
Teetotaler said:
It's going to be up to God whether or not he's going to allow people from other religions into heaven. He is a merciful God and vengeance is his at the end. But the religion of God is Christianity and the Son of God was Christ. There is a scientific explanation for all, so those who choose to believe evolution as a proof of Christianity being false is making an error of nescience. There Will Be Blood. So look to Him.
Click to expand...

Are you a convert? Or were you raised believing this nonsense?
 
Norsefire said:
If you want me to believe it, it is relevant; I can't believe in something that I cannot sense in some way. A book is not enough for me, sorry.
Click to expand...

:confused:
a book isn't enough?

what kind of miracle, evidence, proof, can't be put into a book?

that's just like saying a gun isn't deadly because it isn't sharp..

oh, some guy claims he knows god exists, proof? a book? a small simple puny book..what is so special about a book?
 
Norsefire said:
At any rate you can't possibly be comparing that to angels and demons
Click to expand...
You reveal your lack of imagination, or English comprehension, or both. Of course I can compare them. Here are some instances.

Neither quarks, nor angels have been reliably observed through a microscope.

A larger proportion of the planet's human population have heard of angels than have heard of quarks.

There you are. I just compared quarks with angels and demons, and I did so in two sentences you would have a hard time disproving. Therefore, your contention that I couldn't possibly be comparing them is evidence that your grasp of what is possible is seriously limited.
 
scifes said:
:confused:
a book isn't enough?

what kind of miracle, evidence, proof, can't be put into a book?

that's just like saying a gun isn't deadly because it isn't sharp..

oh, some guy claims he knows god exists, proof? a book? a small simple puny book..what is so special about a book?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying: a book isn't proof for the existence of gods.
 
Teetotaler said:
You would be a convert too if he dropped from the sky and revealed himself to you.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

However, there's a slight problem with that. It is of no consequence that he do so, as it will just be a delusion on my part.

What needs to occur is that he drop in from the sky to everyone on the planet.

Then, after repeated questions and satisfactory answers to his past indiscretions, I would probably convert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top