because the evidence isn't good enoughwhat, am i just supposed to accept it just because every other idiot does? no thanks
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
you don't want to...because everyone else does.
I don't think anyone's going to deny he existed, bro. He was just a really good doctor with a god complex.
give me some documentation citing jesus's existence from eye witness accounts from around his timethat's the only waysorry, bible's not gonna work
Quote from: Verbatim on February 13, 2015, 12:05:51 AMgive me some documentation citing jesus's existence from eye witness accounts from around his timethat's the only waysorry, bible's not gonna workMuch of the gospels are considered historical, but non-Christian authors include Josephus and Tacitus. There are a lot of issues with this, too, since Jesus operated in a largely backwater little part of civilization where very few people wrote, and you've cut out actual eyewitness testimony by excluding the gospels. He's not mentioned much in Roman writings because (1) He didn't really interact with Rome and (2) much of Rome's historical writings were lost in either the great fire or from being conquered.
He obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god. What evidence is this conclusion based on?
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god. What evidence is this conclusion based on? The fact that Jesus Christ was a human being, maybe? Human beings cannot do the things Jesus was said to have done.
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.
Quote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.
you guys are worse than Dustbinyou are the reason he still makes these shitty bait threads
To the Romans, and even many of the Jews, he was just another so called "Prophet". Nothing special, nothing worth recording for history.
Quote from: Val 'Ketam on February 13, 2015, 10:21:16 AMTo the Romans, and even many of the Jews, he was just another so called "Prophet". Nothing special, nothing worth recording for history.And they were right
Quote from: BritishLemön on February 13, 2015, 08:36:17 PMQuote from: Val 'Ketam on February 13, 2015, 10:21:16 AMTo the Romans, and even many of the Jews, he was just another so called "Prophet". Nothing special, nothing worth recording for history.And they were rightthat edge just sawed off my arm you britbong
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?
BLESSED BE THE MAKER
Quote from: Jester on February 13, 2015, 08:49:34 PMBLESSED BE THE MAKERFUCK YOU NIGGERELVEN GODS FOR LIFE
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?SpoilerI'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Quote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 08:49:47 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)Logic isn't relative. It was still illogical then for a lot of the reasons it is now.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on February 13, 2015, 08:29:59 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 06:33:53 PMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 01:18:58 PMQuote from: Lord Keksworth on February 13, 2015, 11:22:36 AMQuote from: Flee on February 13, 2015, 10:24:20 AMHe obviously didn't perform any miracles and is no son of god.This is what puzzles me. How is it 'obvious' that he didn't do any divine shit? What evidence is this conclusion based on? Logically, he probably didn't...but assuming God exists, logic goes right out the window.>assuming god existsThere's your problem.Ah, I get it. You're toting your personal belief or lackthereof around and smugly insisting you know better without any real basis. I see.It's this sort of thinking that leaves me just as disgusted with atheism as I am with any particular religion.Are you saying rational scepticism is equally as bad as credulous belief?I'm saying blindly dismissing a distinct possibility as 'illogical' based on the grounds that 'it sounds illogical' is just as bad as blindly believing in a concept just because it's in a book that's supposed to be holy.Two thousand years ago, not believing in a creator deity was considered laughably illogical. Two thousand years from now, odds are there will be some other belief and our current idea of the Big Bang or Big Crunch or whatever it's called this week will be considered the same. It's why I've never settled on any particular belief. Until I die, I won't know if there is or isn't a creator deity/pantheon, and I'll likely never be given conclusive proof either way. Perhaps the universe was just a happy, astronomically improbable accident...or perhaps it wasn't. Religious neutrality, I call it, because people get anal when I say I'm agnostic and try to insist I'm actually atheist.As it is, I find anyone touting either theism or atheism as 'correct' and concluding that the other side is 'stupid and illogical' as both arrogant and rather hypocritical. That's why religious neutrality is objectively the best personal ideology and all others are wrong. (See what I did there?)
Proof of Jesus Christ
