(the youtuber links will open on Youtube.com in a new browser tab)
Jesus never existed in the first place, and some one that didn't exist cannot be resurrected . The end.
DutchHeretic Thank you.
Where do you get the idea that Jesus never existed? Do you have evidence to disprove his existence? Because I can point you to mounds of evidence for his existence.
Paul Graves Where do you get the idea that Bigfoot never existed? Do you have evidence to disprove his existence? Because I can point you to mounds of evidence for his existence.
Satan, your satire is funny. I like it. Let's say Bigfoot does exist. Would that change any of our realities? No. If Bigfoot was proved to exist, it would just be a scientific discovery. On the other hand, if we found Jesus had existed, and that he did what was recorded, then that changes all of our realities. Jesus claimed to be God, and Bigfoot did not.
Ps. Nice try on your red herring argument.
Paul Graves Your reply is completely irrelevant to what my point is. I'm using the same line of reasoning as you, which is: "You have the burden of proof, even though I made the positive claim." You have the burden of proof since you made the positive claim. There's a reason why people don't try to debunk bigfoot. The people who concocted this claim need to prove it to others. If they have no empirical evidence, then they failed in proving it. Anyways, here's a comment of mine. "I've never heard any "atheists" make those moronic arguments... EVER. The arguments I do hear are: 1. There never was a "Jesus Christ" because it's just another tall tale written by superstitious schizophrenics. 2. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. An easy way to debunk any religion is with this argument: Every single religion that has ever been produced is just an end product of superstition and the fear/ curiosity of the unknown. This includes every single one of the thousands of religions. No religion is any more "special" than the other. Another easy way to disprove Christianity (or any religion) is by pointing out the scientific flaws within the "Good Book". An omnipotent, omniscient, and, omnipresent god would not be scientifically illiterate, especially when it's its own creation."
DutchHeretic ok then science and history didn't exist?
Satan dumbass big foot is a story. If u know facts, big foot is just a man who had abnormally big feet and neighbors made up stories to children to tell them big foot is a monster so that they don't misbehave.
DutchHeretic Its dumb to say jesus didn't exist. To much historical evidence by rome that probe existence and miracles. Jesus definitly existed. A more suitable answer would be God which is debatable.
Dutch: do you have proof of that? If not, you just crushed atheism's chance. BTW, nice move, inviting all those Muslims into Holland and the EU. You did it by working so hard to destroy Christianity, and now Islam is there, and no one hates atheism like a Muslim.
he did and there is proof so your claim of Him not existing is unfounded.
Actually there is lots of evidence to back up his existence and the resurrection. If you are gonna make a claim please provide some support
Meggy Peggy ..no there isn't
Research bud. i.e. "The case for christ"
research http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm (but I bet this is NOT what you want to see (the contradictions in the bible refuting the existence of Christ.) The problem with you Christians that even if the evidence drops on your heads like a 6 ton weight, you just REFUSE to even look at it..
two separate things .
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm try this. Unfounded ? MY ASS, there is tons of REAL unbiased research that shows that the Christ is just a made up story by the Romans to regain the grip on their empire. (Constantine the great) Did you ever wonder why the heart of Christianity is in the fucking heart of the former Roman empire ??
I disagree. You keep telling me that I am using biased evidence but look at you. I know my faith is sound and yes, there is evidence
Christians aren't biased by their faith ? REALLY ??
Meggy Peggy "Faith" and "sound" don't belong in the same sentence as positive descriptors of each other. The whole concept of "faith" is to believe with no evidence. To have "faith" in a god/ religion is to believe with no evidence, especially empirical evidence.
DutchHeretic When did I say that I wasn't biased by my faith?
Satan Yes I rely on my faith because of things that God has done in my life. But just because you believe in something doesn't mean there isn't some evidence for it. Faith can be supported by evidence if there is any (which there is)
Dear Meggy Peggy, When did I say that Meggy Peggy was biased by her faith ?
DutchHeretic read my comment. I supplied you with plenty of evidence. If you don't I'll just assume your dodging evidence on purpose to lie and prove your point. I laid out plenty of evidence for you. Meggy Peggy also pointed to a GREAT resource--"The Case for Christ" book. There are many atheists, including Lee Strobel (who recieved his masters in Law at Yale) and C.S. Lewis (who was previously an atheist, and now is one of the greatest thinkers of the Christian faith) who have examined the evidence and ultimately come to the conclusion that Jesus did, indeed, exist, and that the resurrection did, indeed happen. Both of these men, were determined to intellectually and rationally resist the Christian God particularly, and the idea of God in general. Though, let's just focus on Jesus' existence first. Ps. DutchHeretic, is that article peer-reviewed to an academic standard? Just wondering. I know the sources I linked to you probably weren't, but they make legitimate points surrounding many topics that have been peer-reviewed in academic-standard books. It matters if that article is peer-reviewed. I will gladly read through it when I have the time. Personally, I love being challenged to think rationally about my faith--probably something you're not used to hearing.
Satan, interesting that you believe faith = no examination of evidence. I have faith and I examine evidence. Does that mean I'm a contradiction? Here is the dictionary definition of faith, based on the google search engine's definition: "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." I don't see anything about empirical evidence. In fact, the way it is worded, you could have an atheistic faith--aka complete trust or confidence in science and that there is no God, just like I can have complete trust in the existence of Jesus. I'm sorry, but you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of faith.
Satan, I also find it interesting that you completely ignored the lengthy comment response that I gave you. Too much information or do you not actually care to have an equal discussion?
Ps. I'm sorry to you guys who clicked on this clickbait video. Clickbait is never right in my opinion.
You do realize Jesus is a real historical figure right? Like, it's a known fact and while you argue his divinity you can't argue his existence.
Actually, to disagree that Jesus is actually not a historical figure is to claim that one's own knowledge rivals the VAST majority of historians both Jewish and Atheist. Check out this article about an atheist historian who researched all the evidence regarding the historical vs mythological Jesus (in a 2-part endeavor). https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/ https://strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-2-of-2/ This was his conclusion: "The original question we concerned ourselves with was whether historians regard the existence of Jesus to be "historical fact". The answer is that they do as much as any scholar can do so for the existence of an obscure peasant preacher in the ancient world. There is as much, if not slightly more, evidence for the existence of Yeshua ben Yusef as there is for other comparable Jewish preachers, prophets, and Messianic claimants, even without looking at the gospel material. Additionally, that material contains elements which only make sense if their stories are about a historical figure. The arguments of the Jesus Mythicists, on the other hand, require contortions and suppositions that simply do not stand up to Occam's Razor and continually rest on positions that are not accepted by the majority of even non-Christian and Jewish scholars. The proponents of the Jesus Myth hypothesis are almost exclusively amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and their position is and will almost certainly remain on the outer fringe of theories about the origins of Christianity." It is extremely prideful to claim that one's knowledge on this topic is above the vast majority of historian scholars. Have you found new evidence? Check your source and find out if it is even accepted by other scholars. We are on the internet, afterall, and anyone can post anything.
Honestly I didn't even care lmao I was just looking for a fight on the internet but then I got bored
Core, come on man. Name calling?
Paul Graves Well, you're not using the full religious definition for "faith", which is just that. I would know what "faith" means because I was once religious; in fact, I was a Lutheran Christian. I can recall all the times i would listen to my pastor and teachers preach about how" you don't need evidence to have faith in god" and acquiring the impressionability of a young child when it comes to our "wonderful" and specific god. Also, no you can't have "Atheistic faith" in science because science is the "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. "(Oxford Dictionary), and has proven itself to work time and time again. Another thing, the concept of having "faith" in believing that there is no god is completely flawed due to the said entity being a positive claim with no empirical evidence. You're as much of an atheist to other religions as I am to every religion. Finally, I did write a response to you long ago. Here it is in case you missed it: "Paul Graves Your reply is completely irrelevant to what my point is. I'm using the same line of reasoning as you, which is: 'You have the burden of proof, even though I made the positive claim.' You have the burden of proof since you made the positive claim. There's a reason why people don't try to debunk big foot. The people who concocted this claim need to prove it to others. If they have no empirical evidence, then they failed in proving it. Anyways, here's a comment of mine. 'I've never heard any "atheists" make those moronic arguments... EVER. The arguments I do hear are: 1. There never was a "Jesus Christ" because it's just another tall tale written by superstitious schizophrenics. 2. The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim. An easy way to debunk any religion is with this argument: Every single religion that has ever been produced is just an end product of superstition and the fear/ curiosity of the unknown. This includes every single one of the thousands of religions. No religion is any more "special" than the other. Another easy way to disprove Christianity (or any religion) is by pointing out the scientific flaws within the "Good Book". An omnipotent, omniscient, and, omnipresent god would not be scientifically illiterate, especially when it's its own creation.'"
DutchHeretic did you research this like a Theological or Athiestic scholar? Or did you just assume this? Because as the Bible is made up of different books. They weren't all written at the same time. They were written by different people, and at different times. The other statement to make is that they all accurately describe what Jesus did and what he said in different books of the Bible. To deny the Bible as a historic document alone, but to believe it as a book written by some crazy nutjob is ridiculous and ignorant. So when you spend the many years of your life researching and studying please come back to me
Satan wannabe: Really? I used to be Lutheran. What synod? The modernist gay Lutherans or the Missouri synod, which still uses the Bible. Yeah, Eastern or one of the anti-Bible faith look-alikes. They produce a lot of atheists. No faith, boring preachers, many who are agnostics or atheist intelligentsia. Mr. Ding-a-ling brains, Paul gave you his reply. According to two layers in the family, you were supposed to defend what you believe first. You make the claim there is no god, that Paul is wrong. Now you want to rewrite procedure? That's stupid. Every judge in the country is rolling on the floor laughing at you. Are you always so into that dull, dim and airless li'l box olf really stupid outdated atheist urban legends? Apparently. That's why you picked a loser as your avatar. Your ability at educated English is worse than your mythological faith in atheism. The word faith means to trust. Atheists are always making moron arguments, then run and hide, as you do. You forget, there is proof, we gave it, now you have to ignore it so you can avoid proving your faith is more than a myth. The curse is on you for that :) My advice, ask a lawyer so they can get a good laugh at you.
You don't need to be a scholar. Everyone with a healthy common sense, curiosity and google can show you the exact date that Cleopatra killed her self with a snake bite :august 12 BCE . Mount Vesuvius erupted august 24 79 CE between 2 and 3 PM Julius Cesar was killed by Brutus , March 15, 44 BCE This is all calculated based on documents from that time , written by different independent historians, all agreeing on the same dates. So why don't we know the date when Christ drove the money changers from the temple, the date of his "triumphant" entry in Jerusalem or even the date that Christ died ? We don't even know the YEAR.. Because there are no documents from that particular time that even mention his existence anywhere, while the Romans were very acuate in documenting everything going on. Ane the writers od documents that DO have his name in it (the so called disciples) seem not to agree on anything and tell totally different stories.. But being a christian, people ad taught not to doubt scripture no matter how it contradicts itself.. So they will reject any evidence against the historical existence of Christ, without even looking at it
And all this evidence comes from the bible I guess ? the book that starts contradicting itself in Genesis 2? The problem with you guys is that you dismiss ANY evidence that isn't in your favor without even reading it. So why should I even bother ? Get your lazy ass from your chair and do your own research.. Oops I forgot, you can't because it is forbidden in your religion to doubt your scripture..
Night Prowler, sorry but then science and history didn't exist is the dumbest remark I have ever seen..
yeah... the bible, the book that starts contradicting itself in Genesis 2 ?
DutchHeretic You are so ignorant man. I left you a comment presenting evidence OTHER THAN THE BIBLE and I called you out on not having read it. I can't believe after all that you still believe the Bible is the only evidence Christians have. You dodge the comment on purpose to remain in your ignorance because you don't want to be proven wrong. Your assumption that we can date those things (Cleopatra, Julis Caesar) in other documents is that those documents are reliable. So what makes all the documents outside of Scripture unreliable in your mind? It seems to me you are just making unfounded and ignorant claims. A simple google search will also reveal a plethora of documents about Jesus all of which are written closer to the life of historical jesus than documents were to cleopatra or julius caesar's deaths.
Ps. Dutch I would love it if you stopped using a redherring. You keep changing the subject. The matter at hand that we are discussing is Jesus' existence.
The point is you can still have faith in something but there just might be proof out there! I knew I wanted to follow Jesus before I knew about the proof of the resurrection. Why can't there be both? I know I would still trust God even if there was no evidence
The guy did exist. There are many sources that cite his existence. Of course not the resurrection because that isn't really clear or is false according to the historians. According to the Bible, he did rise up. It just depends on what you want to believe. Just don't be a cock sucker about it.
You really do not know your FACTS. And I not speak about religion. 1. Empirical mathematics shows the underpinning of the universe/multiverse coded language of forces, laws, patterns, forms and fractal. These are non-evolved preexistence to the universe, nature and us. In fact fractals mathematically are infinite thoughts of Mind that and we have discovered them transmuted a around us in life forms, snow flakes, sea shells and much much more. This shows the Agent of creation, Infinite Being of Mind. 2. All of cosmology is in fact history, that is, we observe in our present lights, sounds and signals of past events. The first witness to this history and the reason we do not worship the sun, moon and star is very simply because the stars, moons and stuff of the universe is Created. With the beginning in the initial Cosmic Reactor with deuterium (heavy water) first in plasmic forms displacing instantaneously in what we observe as the 7 layered divided by 250 million light years visual universe map by NASA's 20 year mapping project. And just were do we find this information FIRST. THE BIBLE! That give remarkable description of Chaos to order event. 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (WATERS: deuterium). 3And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3) (E=mc^2) 3. History. The Bible gives a clear picture. Good place to start: Is Genesis History? DVD https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-History-Del-Tackett-DM/dp/B06Y15ZTJ9/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503096407&sr=8-1&keywords=is+genesis+history Del Tackett DM (Actor), Thomas Purifoy Jr (Director) 3. Jesus did exist. No one with even half a brain think this. This if a FACT Jesus lived and lives. You need to do some study my friend: The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Case for ... Series) Kindle Edition by Lee Strobel (Author) Man, Myth, Messiah: Answering History's Greatest QuestionMar 1, 2016 | Kindle eBook by Rice Broocks A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and Roman Crucifixion Methods https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals-the-history-of-crucifixion-and-roman-crucifixion-methods/ Dr. John Thomas Pendleton
All historians accept his existence
biblical evidence is BULLSHIT .. in a similar book A little man once said "Today I'll bake, tomorrow I'll brew, The next I'll fetch the queen's new child;_ Still no one knows it just the same, That Rumpelstiltskin is my name." You don't believe this book told the truth? OK , because of the same reasons I don't believe yours
DutchHeretic Ok, then by that logic, Anne Frank's journal was bs and not a historical book, Thoukidides wrote bs and Homer's Illiad was bs and the Greek-Trojan war never happened. You have to know which parts to believe out of a book. Currently not historian denies the existence of Jesus
That you are dumb enough to accept this nonsense without any proof is entirely your problem.. Look into some real history and you will learn that the whole Jesus Christ MYTH has been copied together from several similar myths with different names written by Greeks, Egyptians Persians centuries BCE I guess the Nicaean council never expected people ever to discover this fraud when the cobbled together the bible some 1700 years ago...
MORON there are REAL pictures of Anne frank, REAL documents with date and time stamps. Are you so afraid that your religious story gets debunked that you will use ANY argument as an excuse NOT to look at the evidence that contradicts the whole existence of a Christ? I can make it simple for you Just look io the side bar -------->>> I bet there are lots of videos there for you to refuse to watch because ooooh they might damage your faith..
Dutch Heritic The Hittites can be evidence. Because Scientists said at one point "The Hittites never existed." But low and behold Archeologists FOUND EVIDENCE of Hittites so that proves the Bible to hold truth. I personally would like to see you try to disprove the existence of the Hittites.
tsimahei Oh, it's you again. It's been a while since I last saw your dreadful handle on this site. You are by far the most pathetic, presumptuous, ironic, and intellectually dishonest person I have ever come across on this site. Instead of acknowledging any of the points made, you pick out the lowest hanging fruit and go on some mentally deprived tirade full of projected ad hominems. You hold no ground to deem anyone else foolish when you are the one that buys into ancient superstitions written by desert dwelling schizophrenics. Your religion is no more special than Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or any other religion ever conceived, you moronic neanderthal. Also, that reply Paul gave was in no way relevant to my first comment, which I made clear in my second post. There was also ZERO empirical evidence presented to me when he made the claim of Jesus' existence. In fact, the earliest historical proof of Jesus' existence was compiled decades after the events supposedly took place. Even if there was some "proof" of his existence, it wouldn't prove his miracles and claims of being "the son of God" to be true. If YOU make the positive claim, YOU have the burden of proof, you jackass. Simply denying the existence of a deity due to no empirical evidence does not automatically shift the burden of proof, you insufferable clod. You are the biggest embarrassment on this site. Not only do you display yourself as a belligerent dimwit, but you also prove to the world how logically unsound you are, not only because you're a theist, but because you can't grasp the concept of syntax, or that there are many definitions for a single word. Context matters! You also aimlessly use "big words" in an attempt to boost your own overblown ego. It's just like our last chat. I swear, you online Christians are the single most entitled and moronic cunts ever to reveal your outrageously arrogant and hostile heads. Go back to your untenable echo chamber, you delusional dolt. I'm surprised I haven't blocked you yet.
I'm sad that you think that Satan. I have come off too aggresively and for that I am sorry. I did, however present you with evidence. I did take that burden upon myself, so I don't know what you're talking about when you tell me the burden of proof is on me. I took that burden and presented. Ps. You keep going back to Jesus as Son of God. I have never once asked you to believe that--I made it very very clear several times that our discussion revolves around the existence of Jesus. Also, I very much enjoy educating myself in all perspectives. I watch videos consistently about views contrary to the Christian faith so that I can learn from them. You make a lot of assumptions, Satan, that are very sad, because they're just not true. Ps. Satan your name calling really accomplishes nothing. It's an abusive ad hominem. I'm sad that's what you've resorted to in our discussion.
Dutch, that's not true at all. I think it's sad you want to make assumptions about me that are completely unfounded. It reveals how quickly you can come to a conclusion. I do examine both sides and I enjoy it. Just yesterday I was watch a guy named Sam (can't remember his last name) who "destroyed the Christian faith" as the title claimed. He actually helped me grow in my faith, because many of the claims he made contradicted what he talked about. He said things about Scripture that could easily be understood by simply looking at context. Anyway, I told you I would read your article that examines contradictory evidence, didn't I? What have you done? Have you examined both sides?
Ps. Dutch, I challenge you to read any of the articles I left you with in several of my comments. As I read the single article you left me with.
Speaking with certainty on something you can't be certain on - you are relying on faith only. The end.
Hans: that's why we call atheism blind faith. It was founded by bronze age goat-herding pedophiles looking for an excuse for their actions. There is no proof atheism is from the intellect, not when all you do is turn off your mind and live in excuses.
Blows my mind that you religious freaks are so blinded by a story book. The only proof of anything you come up with is that historians can proof it was written.
Jeremy Kerr Sorry man, but it's no more blind than believing a nonmaterial infinite (eternal) energy source created finite matter (which, by the way, atheism is a MATERIAL worldview--it contradicts itself at its beginning, right there). Just like Christians believe a nonmaterial infinite (eternal) being created finite matter. Which one is more foolish to believe, that an infinite (eternal), NONmaterial energy exploded and created finite matter out of chaos (which then turned into life randomly, which we cannot yet explain or replicate with science), or that a nonmaterial infinite (eternal) intelligence created an explosion and created finite matter out of chaos and then created life? Both seem like valid assumptions to me. However, neither is disproven. I, for one, choose to believe in an intelligence instead of random energy. Ps. Sorry for a change of subject there, that was a redherring on my part. But to get to your point--written documents and sculpture/art is literally the ONLY thing we have to base our history upon. How else have we defined and believed any other past world history?
Tsimahei, I have a question for you. I'm not sure what religious background you come from or if you are religious at all, but I want to know why you feel the need to be so aggressive? What gain do you have by pushing others down? If you are a Christian I would challenge you to speak respectfully and discuss instead of attacking with words. If you are a Christian you are an ambassador for Christ, live like it on youtube comments, too.
Interesting use of that verse Brom, considering you never responded or (possibly--I am not assuming) read my other comment under David's thread, "What historical record?" I fairly asked you to examine and respond to the argument I had given. Still no response, so I am assuming you are the latter character in the verse.
Paul, don't confuse your friends with your foes. . . I too am a passionate Defender - or so I'd like to think.
Paul Graves What are you talking about? I was replying to tsimahei, who I have a "history" with. The entire comment was directed towards him. In fact, the only time I mentioned you was when he brought up the point of you presenting evidence. You seriously need to go back and read our entire discussion and my discussion with tsimahei. Don't forget to pore over the comments this time.
Paul Graves Hold on there, Paul. You can not compare a book full of ancient superstitions to a theory constructed by scientists who have spent a copious amount of time formulating, observing, and testing. Also, how does materialism contradict atheism? Atheism is not believing in some supernatural deity/s. Materialism is believing that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions. Rather than immaterialism, which fundamentally believes that everything is magic and sorcery. The concept of some sentient and omnipotent being creating anything is laughable at best. Not only is that a huge paradox, but that would include the sentient being having a reason for doing such a thing. Creating a universe along with living organisms, which he personally designed, is something a child would conceive of. What is contradictory is calling an eternal and intelligent being "non material". You also poorly present the Big Bang Theory, which only goes to show how poorly learned you are on the matter. You have, in fact, proven yourself to be scientifically illiterate.
Meggy Peggy having faith is like a blind man driving a car. Dangerous.
core grid fusion god sacrificed him self to himself. What kind of sacrifice is that then came back to life.
Paul: First, if you are a Christian, you have no right to judge me. That's God's area. Next, Jesus referred to atheists as airheads and worse. They are not brothers, and they are supporting Nazism. They let in Islam and a lot of people are dying, yet they haven't the intellect to realize what they are. How do you push down what is already as low as it can get? Atheism is dying because we're talking openly what it is, how it destroys lives and intellect. Leave it alone? They tried that since Darwin and where are we today? How many millions will they slaughter to dominate the world? All it takes for evil to thrive is good men do nothing. It's up to us to stop it, and this is how. No atheist in the intelligentsia will have anything to do wit these people. Dawkins calls non-whites morons and too many of us let it slide. That's racism. You cannot desribe color to a blind man and atheists have blind faith in their own superiority and that little dark box of outdated atheist delusions. Psychologists state, the best way to stop a delusion is to confront it because they're based on narcissism. If a patient has no way to cure himself, he gets worse. See Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, Mao, Stalin and a host of others. Up to you to use the sword Jesus told you to take. Praying your eyes are opened.
Satan: Nope, no history with me. But, what's up?
david steffen: How did God sacrifice himself to himself? You need to find a description of what happens when a man is crucified. It's so painful, yes, you do sweat blood.
tsimahei Yes, we do have a history. I vaguely remember starting a thread on some video relating to theism by despairingly commenting on the mindset of either the people in the comment section or the video. I recognize your handle and picture because of the quarrel we had and the nice picture on your Google+. After reading your last four posts, I can conclude one of these two things. 1. You are a god-tier troll. 2. Your mind has deteriorated into mush and you're now living in a giant schizophrenic delusion. Either way, I hope we can look past these stupid arguments and end on the right terms. 👍
Satan, when you mentioned me I thought you directed the latter part of your comment toward me. Thanks for the clarification. However, I think you are not quite seeing my point. In my mind, the very beginning of materialism is a contradiction, because it starts with an immaterial beginning. Please explain that to me from a scientific perspective that makes sense. Both beginnings I described are immaterial--the whole concept of God is that he is not created and he is not a thing--just like the idea of the immaterial energy. I just don't get why you don't see that. I am still learning the scientific perspective mind you--I took an oceanography class and physical science, but I take biology in the fall. However, I don't think I sound illiterate toward the subject like you say. I tested my knowledge with a Biology professor that teaches in Switzerland and he told me my perspective on atheism's (the materialistic perspective) contradiction was solid. It is an unanswered question.
Tsimahei, I have been confronting and initiating discussion though. I didn't say not to challenge it, I am just suggesting that you calm down about it. I've been seeing you doing a lot of name calling and Jesus only ever name called when he confronted religious leaders who he called "hypocrites" because they laid burdens on people's backs that they themselves could not keep. I don't think it's fair to group all atheists in the idea that they spawn Nazis, or something like that. I'm just uncomfortable with the way you're progressing your discussion... It comes off harsh in my opinion, almost like a prejudice against atheists. I could give you some verses that talk about judging other Christians, but I don't want to just preach at you. This is coming from another brother in the faith who genuinely wants to provide good dialogue with people of other perspectives. I try to hold myself to this standard and fail, too.
Paul Graves Materialism doesn’t have an immaterial beginning; the entire process is materialistic. Let me start by defining the word “nothing” in the context of quantum mechanics. The concept of this “nothingness” is virtually just an “empty space”, right? Within this “empty space” are particles and antiparticles, which makes the conceived notion of a “complete emptiness” untrue. There is no such thing as complete emptiness because that is unstable. What are these particles and antiparticles? The antiparticle has the same mass but is the opposite corresponding particle of said particle. The particles are the “negative charge” in this effect. These particles are electrons, protons, neutrons, and neutrinos. The antiprotons are the “positive charge” in this effect. These antiparticles are positrons, antiprotons, antineutrons, and antineutrinos. I should also state that this all takes place within the Higgs Field, which is a quantum field that creates drag on these particles. And within this field is a subatomic particle called the Higgs Boson, which acts as the intermediary between the Higgs Field and the particles. Although these antiparticles and particles can’t be directly observed due to their short “life”, we can observe their effects by observing the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. I should also state that we know that the universe once had a beginning due to its current observable expansion. The Big Bang Theory answers this query. Your beliefs are immaterial, because it is metaphysical. The concept of a sentient deity is materialistic outside the context of “nothingness”. Since there is “nothingness”, a sentient deity cannot exist; therefore, it is immaterial. An energetic field is not equivalent to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and interactive deity. Do you now understand this? I have a question for you. How has your biology course affected your view on Christianity?
Thanks for the great response Satan. Love it. I am taking the biology course in the fall. The sciences have only served to strengthen my faith as I ask more questions, just being honest here. I actually just learned about particles and antiparticles from this professor, but you forgot to mention how they are a-symmetrical by nature, which doesn't make sense yet to scientists. The antiparticles do not exactly match the amount of particles. He also told me that it has not yet been explained or replicated how life can come from nonliving matter in the first place. As of now, I just don't trust science, though I do appreciate it--it certainly provides us with a lot of truth about the world. I think these inconsistencies I've identified just aren't talked about and atheism itself is made to look more consistent than it really is. It is deceitful in my opinion. Anyway, I get what you're saying. Thank you for explaining all of that to me--it certainly adds more depth to my understanding of it. I don't think I will ever understand the concept of something being eternal and different as the energy is. The existence of something before the big bang isn't possible because that would necessitate time and space. That's why I revert to the idea of another plane of "existence" for a lack of a better term. For the Christian, it is the spiritual realm. People connect with this idea (that there is a spiritual realm and a soul of some sort) because ideas such as "love" go far beyond chemical reactions that science can show. Simply the fact that we can have the idea of a "god" is used as an argument by some to provide evidence for the possiblity. Though I am not saying I embrace that view. I just can't accept that there was no intelligence behind this, because we see nothing created out of chaos other than from that explosion. In my entire lifetime, I'm certain I will never see a book make itself. Likewise, how much more difficult for DNA to make itself? It just doesn't make sense in my mind without an intelligence behind all this. Thanks for the well-thought-out response Satan!!
DutchHeretic your wrong science archeologists have proven that jesus was a real person based on there finds and studies, many of them dont beleive he was god, but they all agreed that there was a man or some one named jesus who was killed on a cross, theyve found this in the bible and writings that where made by the romans, the bible claims he rose from the dead and so did other finds, now answer me this, how does the bible have all these events in them that are found in old manuscrips, and tablets, that have been put away and un touched for thousands of years? Theyve been un touched so no one could copy the ancient writings, so how did the bible get them? Aso, tablets found in what was once a philistein city tell the story of a giant who was killied by a boy who used nothing but a stone and a sling. People found chariot wheels and horse as well as people bones at the bottom of the red sea theyve been untouched, how did the bible know about this? There are so many things that have been descovered that the bible claims has happened and there are so many other finds that prove the bible is true, now you can chose to except it, or you can say this is all lies and nothing i said is true, but im not making this up,
Rookit Master you are the one who is wrong. argeaologists have found no "footprint" of any event like the bible wants us to believe. of the studied documents (from other writers) found from that time that could be cross checked and verified being exactly fom that time and place, NONE of them tells of anytinng even remotely confirming the story of any spectacular events happening that could be connected to miracles of some special person. The conclusion that there MIGHT have been some jesus figure that MAYBE could have been the model for the Christ myth, is pure speculation.. let me give you some other example: The Exodus want us to believe that perhaps millions of jews have wandered for 40 years through the sinai region. Iraeli archaeologists had all motivation to look for evidence there but did not even find a toothpick that could MAYBE confirm the biblical myth.. There is NO real tangible historical proof what so ever that Rumpelstiltskin ever existed and same goes for the mythical Jesus..
Rookit Master, you might as well give up on arguing or debating with Dutch. He doesn't listen to credible historians, nor does he pay attention to those scholars. He listens to internet articles that have been disputed and not accepted by the wider academic community. What you say is true, but those who desire to believe what they want to believe will do so. Jesus told the parable of the rich man; in this parable, the rich man begged for mercy after he received condemnation, yet Jesus said, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31, clearly a foreshadowing there). I believe some people can reach a point intellectually where no matter how much evidence is presented, because of a hardness of heart, sometimes they won't budge even to the most basic assumptions (that Jesus is historical). No openness to new ideas or the Lordship of Jesus over one's life.
LOL You have a real problem there , you only want to read what CONFIRMS your silly belief in one of the thousands of silly gods invented by man since the dawn of man. So you will only read theological nonsense (because that's what it is) to get what you want to see as proof. This is called confirmation bias. I have read many of these "credible" historians , dit you ? There are such holes in their findings that only a believer will not notice. The problem with you is that even if I totally cover you with evidence and citations to that evidence YOU REFUSE to even look at it, because you don't like it when your silly belief possibly can be contradicted.
Guys, don't bother. You can't convince someone who is in denial...
Yes like Christians in denial of reality .. Give it up you never win, there is a reason the number of atheists in the Netherlands is growing so rapidly, churches are for sale all over the country.. your christian denial of reality is rapidly in decline ..
+DutchHeretic Well, lack of education would be one reason for people becoming atheists. But don't worry, your atheistic friends in the governments of Europe are busy shipping in Muslims.
Dutch, the thing is, I have provided you with many sources, yet you have provided me with only one (that I amskeptical of). I have not read through it yet due to lack of time (and, honestly, laziness), but I do plan on reading it. Just an fyi... everyone is bias. It doesn't matter who you are no matter how objectively you look at something, if you think and have a perspective, you hold a fundamental information examination bias. It's not only "religious".
Why should i ? I said numerous times here, YOU WON'T READ IT ANYWAY , so why bother, if you really wanted to know, you would have found it.. But you DON'T want to find it, because your faith gives you the delusion that you know everything you need to know.. So why bother? I can of course invite you to take a look at my website that holds one special page about the subject http://www.dutchheretic.nl/the_jesus_myth.html but again, you will not even consider reading it all because of your silly faith
Hans S what do you mean you have to dumb down to believe in a god.
+david steffen Your English is the epitome of 'dumbed down.' I fear your reasoning capabilites aren't much better off.
Hans S I have very good reasoning and who cares about my English it has nothing to do with the subject of discussion. Your epitome of christians they always change the subject or beat around the bush when they can't prove there point or answer a yes or no answer. And I won't waste anymore time I'm sure we both have more important things to be doing than this.
Paul Graves Sorry I wasn’t able to respond any sooner. The hurricane has greatly caused a disturbance where I’m at, and I’ve been preoccupied with this mess. I’m very happy to hear that you already have some grasp on quantum mechanics. Hopefully, you’ll be able to understand what I’ll explain. If you do, it’ll save me time. Speaking of time, let’s discuss the relevance of time in a vacuum. Space and time is devoid in a vacuum. The only thing that exists within a vacuum is virtual particles, ie., there exists particles and antiparticles within a vacuum. Now, let’s continue the discussion of particles and antiparticles. Yes, Baryon Asymmetry has not been completely answered, but you’re incorrect in stating that it doesn’t make sense to scientists. Physicists have come up with a few plausible options of how this phenomenon took place. The most popular alternative is that antiparticles behave slightly differently than particles. If we were to take the Big Bang Theory into account, we’d know that during this “bang”, many of these particles and antiparticles would’ve been produced in copious amounts at an identical rate. The distinct behavior of antiparticles would have ultimately caused the imbalance between antiparticles and particles. Another viable option could be that the observable universe just happens to be dominated by particles. Your professor is dangerously wrong in stating that there have been no experiments or explanations that presents the emergence of non-living matter into life. There’s a branch in chemistry called “abiogenesis”. This branch explains the original evolution of life from inorganic or inanimate substances. This is the basic process of abiogenesis: No life > Monomer > Protocells > Cells > Ultimate Life. To elaborate on this process, I should allude to the “Miller-Urey Experiment”. This experiment was conducted by two biochemists named Stanley Miller and Harold Urey. In this experiment, they attempted to demonstrate how several organic compounds could be formed “spontaneously” by simulating the conditions of Earth's early atmosphere. They started by eliminating our atmosphere via a vacuum pump. Once it was eliminated, they added the chemicals that they concluded were within the primitive atmosphere, which were: oxygen, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. They then heated up the water, which became vapor. The vapor traveled to the more bulbous area, which contains an electric spark powered by electrodes to simulate lightning. After reaching the bulbous area, the water was then condensed with a cooling device only to finally land into the trap. After one week of this process, they examined the contents of the liquid pool to find several amino acids. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. These building blocks of life would then turn into proteins, which is life, within some primordial soup or thermal vent. I don’t blame your professor for not knowing this process, since it is out of his field, but he shouldn’t go on and about blatantly claiming such things. Let me confront your concerns with science, religion, and atheism. Atheism is purely lacking the belief in a god or gods. These “inconsistencies” that you pointed out are irrelevant to atheism simply because atheists refute the concept of a theistic god/s. That’s where it ends. Science is a field that has advanced our civilization because of one simple reason - It’s a study of structure and behavior of the physical and natural world. It arrives to its conclusions through observation and experimentation. Your computer, wifi, gps, internet, and life can account for this. Of course there will be some changes of systemic opinion in relativity to vastly complex branches such as Quantum Mechanics, but that’s only because of an increase in nuance of the world that they’re trying to uncover. Putting your trust in religion is foolish, especially when you have access to all the products and knowledge uncovered by the great field of science. What is the value of superstition compared to the composite reality of our world and universe other than to comfort its followers in a deceitfully gracious cloud of blissful ignorance? Your points attempting to support the existence of a god are feeble, and I mean that in the most respectful manner. The first ultra conscious beings deemed anything they perceived as “powerful” and alarming an omnipotent deity. They worshipped volcanoes as hungry and raging gods that could only be quenched with flesh of the most robust warrior or the most delicate virgin. The religions that we have now evolved form there. Like I have previously stated, it’s merely based off of superstition and the fear of the unknown. If you don’t truly question your faith after this post, I could only hope that your upcoming biology class will lead you in the right direction. Have a good night.
Thanks for the detailed response, Satan. I hope that you are doing OK with the storms! No pressure and don't feel the need to read this right away or get back to me anytime soon. Must be tough. Now, to the matter at hand... I still have a problem with amino acids. My professor is well-aware of this process you mentioned. This is where my professor had a problem. He claimed that they were never able to produce anything further than amino acids. You say it is the building blocks, which is true, but then why can't we make it into proteins? You mentioned how amino acids turn into proteins, but according to my professor that never happened in their experiment and still hasn't. All they have produced is amino acids, according to what he's told me. I know science evolves over time as we gain understanding, but I also know there are sometimes roadblocks to science where we just can't fully understand "why". An example of this is antiparticles--we can speculate "why" they act the way they do but we can't know for sure. Why do they mirror particles and why do they do it a-symmetrically? We have produced only theoretical responses. Another example is why does gravity exist and why does eternal energy exist in a vacuum in the first place? For me, until the scientists, who are intelligent beings themselves, can fully produce life from a non-living material, I will not buy into everything science has to offer (though I am still a fan of the innovating and discovery that it offers). If intelligent beings can't create living matter from non-living, how is an explosion supposed to do that? Thank you for the response Satan, seriously. It means a lot the depth that you have poured into your discussion with me. The thing with Christianity that I think sets it apart is that it is not a religion based on fear--even though sometimes it is mistaken for that. It is first and foremost based on a relationship with a God that is near--because he came in flesh through Jesus. I know I am circling here because this gets back to the historicity debate, but with your knowledge, you should know it is likely this man existed. If he did exist, that means his claims exist and the answer of whether or not he really did resurrect matters. There are many atheists just like you who have set out to disprove the resurrection and have come to the conclusion that Jesus is who he said he is. Just to add some logic and rationality to Christianity--you can assess all worldviews based on these three categories. The first category is that one holds a non-materialistic worldview, that is, everything is god and reality does not actually exist (hinduism, buddhism, new age, etc.). The second category is that God exists and the material world we live in also exists and is reality. The third category is that only materialism exists (atheism and other views). You can assess all worldviews based on these three catagories. Now, I want you to understand that Christianity is ultimately set a part from all other religions based on this idea: that we do not earn salvation by works. All other religion and ideas you are presenting are based on works (i.e. sacrifice to the volcano god). The God found through Jesus is completely different--he sets out to do something that we, as humans, center our lives around and can completely relate to. He comes into relationship with us--we have the first account through Adam and Eve and then through all of the Scriptures to Jesus. The Christian God is not demanding that we sacrifice people, but he is challenging those who follow him to bless and love others. Even if you look at the Old Testament, God gives Abraham the covenant in order to "bless" the nations (though the Israelite people utterly fail at doing this, because they were actually prejudice toward most outsiders. Though, that does not mean God condones their actions). Have you heard about any other religion that isn't based on works and frantically "earning" your way to heaven other than Christianity? Yet how and why do so many Christ-followers end up expressing so many "works" outwardly to others out of love (of course, we all fail at doing this, too)? Why do they do it if they do not need to earn their way to heaven. What's the point? In my opinion, Satan, Christianity is the most rational faith, because it takes into account creation (materialism and science) and God. You have to admit the number calculation of the chance of the Big Bang happening is astronomical, so much so that a person could spend their entire lifetime writing out the number on paper(s) and never finish. Things creating themselves from chaos, nonliving matter to living matter. These things are all still not completely solved, and they do not disprove a God. There are too many miraculous things that happen in our world for it all to be an accident. That's where I can agree to disagree. Pardon my rambling, that second to last paragraph definitely went on a tangent a big. You're tight though, Satan. Glad a Christ-follower can get along with the self-proclaimed "Satan" youtuber. Haha. Looking forward to a response, if you have the time. Anyway, keep studying and researching as I will likewise be doing in many fields!
Yet there is near universal consensus among scholars Jesus lived and died on the cross...
WaterspoutsOfTheDeep correction: among CHRISTIAN scholars
" correction: among CHRISTIAN scholars " Nope, among all academic PhD scholars relevant to the field. There are only about 2 or 3 PhD mythicists, and they aren't academic scholars.
Nope NOT all, the number of archaeologists, historians that have serious doubts about the existence of the historical Christ is growing rapidly. People like you who are afraid of loosing their pet "son of god" will always resist this is happening. People like you will always do anything to discredit these conclusions and do your best to intellectually assassinate scientists and intellectuals who present these conclusions that are not favorable to their precious religion.. People like you will simply refuse to even look at the presented studies and evidence.. Several times in this comment section I have presented this link: http://www.dutchheretic.nl/the_jesus_myth.html but will you even consider looking at it? I seriously doubt it .. Fortunately more ans more people wake up from the fath scam, that religion really is and the number of atheists is growing explosively...
What are you rabbling on about? I merely corrected one of your statements. The only PhD scholars (in the Western world) in relevant fields of study that reject Jesus' existence is Richard Carrier & Robert Price (maybe one more), out of ~6000+ . . . Growing your position it may possibly be, but it is still well under 0.5% . . . Bart Ehrman stated that: "These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology. Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed.” "There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds — thousands? — of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world." Might I remind you what I claimed? [There is near universal consensus] among all academic PhD scholars relevant to the field that Jesus existed. Does >99.95% not sound like near universal consensus? Now get off my back, move on. Praise Jesus.
Dutch: You still haven't explained Jesus isn't God. You come at this with a definite bias, and give personal opinion, not fact. The Bible states Christianity didn't spread fast. History does, after the fall of Jerusalem. I bet you still believe Hitler was a Christian, huh? :) No need to intellectually scientists and intellectuals when they do it to themselves, like the Fink and Hawasi did. Foot wounds can be very painful. Again, you ignore science. Atheism is dying, while Christianity is booming. And, thanks to atheists, Islam is, as well. I apologize for the late answer, I overlooked this one.
Where you state "Atheism is dying, while Christianity is booming" is completely *false*. probably you got your numbers from conservapedia ?? Here are some links to give more details:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-secular-life/201510/how-many-atheists-are-there http://atheistempire.com/reference/stats/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250096/You-wouldnt-believe-atheism-worlds-biggest-faith-Christianity-Islam.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/12/america-less-christian-percentage-non-believers-grows
https://baptistnews.com/article/u-s-atheist-population-is-growing-and-needs-radical-hospitality-christian-filmmaker-says/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/way-more-americans-may-be-atheists-than-we-thought/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/08/10/survey-says-atheism-is-on-the-rise-worldwide-and-in-america/ https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-growth-rate-of-the-atheist-population-in-the-world-right-now
And The list goes on and on and on
actually roman documents outside the bible, like the Taticus for example, did say Jesus was real, was executed under Pilot's order, and then the start of Christianity. This is outside the bible btw.
Jesus can't be (a) god, because gods and religions are man made constructs. When the god you claim to be real does not exist, leads to the next step: something that does not exist cannot have existing offspring and non existing offspring od an also non existing god also cannot be a god be god(s) do not exist because they are made up by mankind (that is what human construct means) And this makes it Mythology = fiction about gods.. Same like Fables = fiction about talking animals, or as Fairytales fiction about fairies elves and other magical characters. The bible fits into each and everyone of these categories. Even in current modern times every day new religions are being invented like Scientology, Jedi-ism you name it .. That Christianity is so successful does not make it real..
You see, the best way to look like an idiot is to talk about something you don't know about. What you don't know is that there is so much evidence that every scientist and archaeologist worth their salt that has looked into it has confirmed without a doubt that there was a Jesus
and the sad thing probably is that atheists are in most cases better informed than Christians who in most case don't have a clue about what goes on in reality
DutchHeretic Well you do know that a ton of very famous scientists, like Albert Einstein for example, were Christian/Jewish, right? Did Einstein and many others not know what was going on? ((And yes Einstein did keep faith til the end))
You even have the name wrong his name was TACITUS and he mostly wrote about the german and french tribes like the gaul (no not Asterix and Obelix) and when he mentioned this execution was in 116 so he can only have based this other writings, like the gospel of Mark, that was plagiarized by all the other so called disciples that lived about the same time as Tacitus..
DutchHeretic so you just proved that he DID mention Jesus, right? And you said he never existed?
DutchHeretic Plus, all the gospels said the same story with Jesus, a few with different details that they looked at. If Cnn and Fox covered the same story and had slight differences, is that plagiarism? No. So why are records of the same thing "plagiarism" to you?
YOU mention Jesus over and over again does THAT prove that he DID exist? Fact : there as NO historical (bureaucratic) records from the time he supposed to have lived and died that ever mentioned anything, about such a man Wouldn't you think that the "miracles" and other spectacular performances Jesus supposedly did and especially his execution would go unnoticed to the bureaucrats of that time? For goodness sake there isn't even a date known of his execution (because it is no where mentioned in the records).. I am getting tired of this, Sofar you (believers) have not given one serious argument.. It is all the same crap over and over again, do the research your self for a change.. Oops I forgot, you cannot do unbiased research because you want him to be real. I really don't give a fuck if he existed or not, I care about accurate recording of history
DutchHeretic What year is it?
The current year is 2017 because the christian world has agreed to year count created by Dionysus Exiguus According to his calculations that was the year 525 However it was still based on the Julian Calendar which because of the vanity of Julius Cesar had an incorrect number of days. Almost thousand years of lag in the number of days also created weird situation that somewhere in the middle ages it was winter in June and summer in December.. This was corrected in 1582 (this can vary in different countries) by introducing the Gregorian calendar that we still use today. But this does not mean that we cannot find the correct dates of historical events dating down to 400 years BC. There are tables that compare the different calendar dates of all ever used year counting systems. By using that method, plus based on the terms of political delegation of certain important Romans the result is still that * none* of the official documents of that time mention miracles of events subscribed to Jesus or some other kind of supposed messiah (and there were quite a number of them in that time)
Paul Graves Thank you very much for the good wishes. The hurricane didn’t affect me too bad, but the flooding and power outage did take a toll. Fortunately, my property was not severely flooded. It appears that I wasn’t coherent enough with my abiogenesis and Miller-Urey experiment explanation. The Miller-Urey Experiment did not produce proteins, but that is simply because it was a simulation of the general atmosphere that would’ve contained other possible anomalies and chemicals, which would have existed within that environment, such as ocean vents, clay, meteors with extraterrestrial molecules, etc. The Miller-Urey experiment’s purpose was to support the hypothesis of organic compounds “spontaneously” forming by virtue of simulating earth’s early conditions. The experiment did achieve the proposed goal by ultimately developing amino acids. Now, amino acids form into proteins via more chemical reactions. The way amino acids form into proteins is by attaching the amino group (NH3) to the carboxyl group (COOH) through peptide bonds. Peptide bonds are formed through a biochemical reaction that extracts the water molecule. These amino acids won’t bind in water, so there needs to be a suitable environment. This is where clay takes part in this process. Clay has a natural charge that can attract and hold other molecules, and it contains small amounts of metal atoms, such as copper, iron, or zinc, which function as catalysts that would facilitate the dehydration reaction. Since clay can be located on or near the surface of a body of water, it can provide a suffice environment for these amino acids. These amino acids can then interact with the water after the binding so that it could then be folded by the water and finally be sent back to the body of water via tides, rain, etc. as a protein. I should also state that there are other molecules which were formed by interacting with one another. An example of this is RNA. First, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) formed through the interaction of water vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, and ammonia and/or nitrogen, and the presence of an energy source. These HCN molecules then undergo “spontaneous” reactions with each other while in the presence of an energy source and create nucleotides, such as adenine, guanine, cytosine, uracil. These nucleotides would then bond with ribose (a sugar) and a phosphate group (They were present in the primordial earth.) to form RNA. The self-replicating RNA would then be “spontaneously” enclosed within an amphipathic phosphatidylcholine cell membrane (The membrane is phosphate that is chemically bound to glycerol and choline.), which would effectively form the first self-replicating cell/ protocell. Intelligent beings have created life from non-life. A biochemist by the name of Jack Szostak created a protocell in his lab in 2012. This protocell consisted of the classic protocell components, which are: genetic material (DNA/RNA) and fatty skin (membrane). The cell started to multiply, and each copy of itself had minor variations. You look at the universe as if there is an ultimate cause. You suppose that everything within it must have an ultimate purpose that we will never truly know as if there is some alternative to the knowledge we seek. This is what religion does to people. It instills the belief that anything unknown is only accessible to a “greater knowledge” that we will never have. This brand of thinking is regressive because it demotivates the individuals seeking the knowledge of the process of the grand “machine” we call the universe. It narrows the mind and focuses on one sole “truth”, which proves the point of these “institutions” being nothing more than superstition. Look at where we are. We’ve achieved these gadgets and knowledge through the merit of man, not by books full of superstitions. The sooner you understand that science is a product of the excellence of our brains and religion is the angst of our ignorance, the sooner you’ll become more liberated and observant than you can currently envision. Christianity, just like any other religion, is based on fear. The premise of it is based on fear. It states that if you do not adhere and worship that specific god, you’ll be punished with the worst possible penalty imaginable for eternity because he is a jealous, spiteful, and violent god. On paper, this religion is inanely strict, logically and scientifically flawed, and abusive. Even if this religion were as delightful and personal as you paint it, it would not hold up in the skeptic world since it has many scientific flaws (flat earth, creationism, massive flood, etc.), and it’s inconsistent and contradicts itself (night/day and the sun being created at different times, stating that trees were created before man and then stating man was created before trees, God assumes that Adam and Eve can make decisions without a concept of good or bad, etc.). An omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent god would not make such foolish errors. Hopefully, I can convince you how I know this “Jesus” character did not exist by publicizing a Romano-Jewish historian by the name of “Titus Flavius Josephus”. This man was alive and recording history at the time Jesus and Christianity would’ve been extremely relevant to his location; but alas, nothing came of it. Of course, there are “texts” of Josephus’ that supposedly recount of this man/ God and religion, but they are forgeries created by Bishop Eusebius, who was a known Church propagandist and “liar-for-God”. He was the first person known to have quoted this text in 340 CE. I don’t see the relevance in making an argument that claims Christianity to be the most “rational” religion. Almost every single point you made can be applied to any other theistic religion. The points that set it apart are “God’s not demanding of sacrifice.” and “Salvation is not earned through works.”, which are both flawed. The Christian god has been demanding of animal sacrifices, money, crops, and Abraham’s son as a sacrifice (which was not completed). The assertion of salvation being earned through belief and not work is also flawed because the Christian god commands for his people to obey his every demand. Those who obey him and his word are saved, but those who don’t obey and are hypocritical in their actions are damned, i.e. homosexuals and other “sinners”. Solely believing in Jesus Christ as your savior is not enough. Even if your assertions were true, the only reason Christianity would be the most transformative and “happy” religion is because Christianity is the single most reformed religion in recorded history due to its popularity and “interpreters”. Also, no theistic belief takes into account materialism because they all recount of “miracles” and other physically impossible actions. If you counter that final assertion of mine, don’t make an argument along the lines of, “There are many things now that would’ve been perceived as miracles then.”, because the people from back then had no concept of technology or science in general. These events that supposedly took place are all products of a very creative imagination. Note that many “prophets” from the superstitious era were demonstrably either schizophrenic to an extent or dabbled with certain psychedelic drugs. The probability of an event like the Big Bang occurring isn’t too astronomical since the context of this event takes place during a period with no concept of time. The probability could’ve been much less, and it still would’ve been bound to occur at some point. Taking into account the scientific discoveries we have already made, we can confidently assume at the very least that a theistic god does not exist. I’m also very happy that we can have a productive and serene discourse. I’m hoping for a response. Cheers.
* most Josephus scholars (estimated at above 3/4) hold that Josephus's Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core. Yes, about 3 lines were later interpolated, but even without them he mentions Jesus in that passage. But besides, he mentions Jesus along with James elsewhere, which is virtually undisputedly authentic.
Brom Ponie dream on I made my point..
DutchHeretic uhhhhh what point? When Christians drive a good argument, you just cover your ears and pretend that we are just dumb people believing in some fake god. The point you made is not valid for multiple reasons. First off, you need to provide evidence to your claim. I provided you the Tacitus texts, which is believed that he got the info from other soldiers and people who saw his death. Because, well, the new testament was not clumped together just yet. They might have been written down but by many witnesses and maybe even the apostles themselves, which did NOT believe Jesus rose from the dead until that actually SAW him, and touched his scars... And after which did preach what they have gin through, even though most were brutally murdered. So let me ask you. If these apostles knew Jesus never existed, then why preach it until their dying breath?
Have you checked ANY of my arguments ? Have you checked ANY of my links ? ... Thought so, now WHO is covering his/her/it's proverbial ears?
DutchHeretic I read them already. How ever, they state "Jesus never existed" without actually disproving them. Also, there is one other thing I should mention. You remember Saul, the first devouted enemy to Christianity? Well apparently Jesus came to him, 30 years after his crucifixion, and told him not to murder his people. Of course this caused Saul to go blind for three days, but that doesn't matter. Because he saw Jesus after his death, he decided to side with Christians, and talk to them about their encounters, ultimately sealing his Fate. Before he died, he wrote his experience on a letter to the temple. Saul was a historic person, AND his letter was a primary source of evidence (which is the best kind of proof.)
Read it already ? it took me three days to read, a few weeks to compile it in to my website, the page is like 15 feet high and you have read it already? I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you tell me the back ground color of the page in my link..
DutchHeretic Pffff I read it quite a while ago. And YOU made this pile of crap? Omg no wonder why you believe it. Because YOU made the page, said that all of Jesus's traits are from the old testament, and pretty much every single little thing against Jesus. Now excuse me but where the hell did you get your source of info?
What was the color of the page? I think you are full of shit.. I didn't say I wrote it I compiled it into a readable HTML file. And your argument is a fairytale that 30 years Jesus supposedly died he came to Saul? Man you are delusional .. BTW. The First source is the bible it self. Just crosse referencing its inconsistencies and contradictions.. The other sources are in the text itself which you could have known if you have read it. Again I think you are full of shit..
Sidetracking, has nothing to do with the subject, you must be getting desperate. An Einstein ? He was a brilliant theoretical physicist, not a rabbi or a theologian.. You might like this quote of him (or not) Science without religion is lame, Religion without science is blind.. *Albert Einstein Man I would so much want you you to challenge me in a video, but I guess that will never happen because you possibly only are here to comment ..
DutchHeretic I don't recall such a quote spouted by Einstein considering he was an agnostic deist. Where did you retrieve that quote from?
There are a lot of quotes attributed to Einstein if it is real ? I don't know , but as far as history shows Einstein was a Jew in name only.. Loved that thingy about life I saved it to perhaps use it later.. citation? Satan! that would be a big laugh.
DutchHeretic I can't completely decipher your comment due to it's strange punctuation and format (no offense), but I just wanted to make clear that Albert Einstein, was in fact, not theistic. If I were you, I'd stray from that site of quotes due to the inconsistency I stated.
Paul Graves Paul, are you still there?
Oops, I was drunk that evening, there was a huge party in my village.. Perhaps this is better ? < what is between the ( ) is what I should have added to make it more comprehensible > There are a lot of quotes attributed to Einstein. If it is real ? I don't know.. But as far as history shows, Einstein was a Jew In Name Only.. (a JINO ?) <to me this means that he was not practicing religion> ( i ) Loved that thingy about life < with the "thingy" I mean that piece you wrote about the origin of life > I saved it to perhaps use it later (somewhere) (and if someone asks for a) citation? (I will just say that it came from) Satan! That would be a big laugh. hmm, I think I probably made it worse...
DutchHeretic Oh, okay. Thank you for clarifying your comment. I'd like to give you some advice concerning "my piece" about the origin of life. It's good that you took the opportunity to save it for later discussions, but I advise you to educate yourself on the subject. Many of the terms and processes used in my explanation might seem mindbogglingly confusing to the untrained eye. If you investigate these processes and terms yourself, you'll be able to summarize abiogenesis fairly easily. Another reason to do this is for the sake of science's validity. You wouldn't want a theist to deduce the field to be a "work of the Devil". Haha! Cheers.
you can contact me via e-mail if you want , email@example.com could be very interesting
+DutchHeretic eeek you're cringe worthy. the Christian faith has had exponential evidences to support it in the last 100 years due to modern archeology so your statements make me cringe. Your ramblings about Jesus not being God makes no logical sense either. It's also pretty simple from the scientific standpoint too, order and logic doesn't come from chaos so there has to be a God with a mind. The multiverse doesn't get rid of that fact and it's been prove it also needs a starting point.
Makes more sense than your religion, based on magic, talking snakes and donkeys, a flood that kills everyone but one family that repopulates the world via incest, etc etc THAT all makes logical sense? LOL
WaterspousOfTheDeep "The Christian faith has had exponential evidence to support it..." Name one, and cite the source of that information. "It's also pretty simple from the scientific standpoint too, order and logic doesn't come from chaos so there has to be a God with a mind. " That is a poorly thought out conclusion, specifically because you're asserting an absolute with no absolute evidence. Order and logic is relative to us. The "order" you see in the universe was brought up through a "mechanical" manner, meaning that there was a long winded process (in our eyes) that occurred only to finally arise to where it recently has. An intelligent and sentient deity would go against all logic since it goes against all natural processes, rendering it impossible. If you'd like to read up on this, you can read my responses to Paul Graves in this thread that concern Quantum Mechanics and such topics.
+Hans S sorry I overlooked this one. you are incorrect, countries countries with the best education have the largest number of atheists. The Netherlands currently are on the 6th place where the the USA just traded places with some third world country for the 30th place in the world education rankings. Guess which country is more religious ? The correct statement is : lack of __indoctrination_ would be one reason for people becoming atheists_ And Muslims are shipping themselves in and are becoming a huge problem which is hard to solve without causing more terrorism and probably civil war that can cause all out war with the Muslim world and that would be yet another RELIGIOUS war.. Ever thought of that ? Of course not. People indoctrinated with some idiotic belief don't think that way, because the have been brainwashed in to only think of things that are in favor of their stupid religion..
I am familiar wit this video Actually Watched it years ago and this video actually was the first moment I started to doubt the historical existence of the biblical Christ. As a 4rth generation atheist I saw Jesus as a sort of love and peace hippie and paid no further attention to it until church people started proselytizing their religion up on me.. That was the moment I realized that I was ignorant to refute them so I started gathering knowledge about the subject and all came down to regard the whole religion subject as an indoctrination force, responsible for 90% of the bloodshed and oppression in the world.. It was not that I made this in to a mission to refute religion but I kept reading and comparing. The only conclusion I could reach that the whole Jesus story was cobbled together from bits and pieces from older religious myths compiled by multiple writers who apparently did not noticed the contradictions between their stories.. There is nothing more to say about it, I have learned to separate bullshit from fact... Lots of ex Christian atheist became atheist this way
+DutchHeretic Oh please you are a troll, there is near universal consensus Jesus existed. The support for the biblical text is extensive in general. Since modern archeology it's increased 10 fold.
+Satan Stop being lazy, and it's called the law of decay. God is independent of our universe not confined by it. My statement stands.
+WaterspoutsOfTheDeep So because YOU cannot win I am a troll ?.. It is like Christianity Because a Billion+ people believe it, it must be true ? I have a huge page with the size of a book dedicated to this subject on my website but you all refuse to even take a look at it.. With this page I have provided citations while most of you only parrot what has been jammed in to your head since you were a toddler Your religion only creates fanatics believing in things that are flat out impossible or blatant lies from the beginning and noticing your nickname you must be one of them, and looking at your channel with some computer game clips I gather you are some kid.. Go read the bible start at page one and end with the last page and see for yourself how idiotic your belief is ( warning lots of people became atheist after have read the bible from front to back )
Ads by google:
is a non profit English language Atheist website from the Netherlands
Advertisements are by google adsense and outside reponisiblity of dutch heretic.com
Other than source linked content , ©2013-2014 dutch heretic.com