Evidenc of Jesus

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#41 Apr 28, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good to have a opinion.
Yes it is.

But an opinion that is uninformed, is pretty much worthless.

Would you trust a garbage collector to build a Rocket to the Moon?

Likely you would not-- and be justified in your choice.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#42 May 1, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
You have yet to learn the difference between opinion and fact.
1. Opinions are what you have.
2. Facts are what you are, ie. You are an idiot.
See if you hang around here long enough you might learn something.
Well then, You're an idiot and I'm not being rude, it's just a fact.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#43 May 1, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is.
But an opinion that is uninformed, is pretty much worthless.
Would you trust a garbage collector to build a Rocket to the Moon?
Likely you would not-- and be justified in your choice.
No, it's a fact, from what I heard, so you're stupid, but I'm not being rude, look at the facts.
Cujo

Leask, Canada

#44 May 1, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
IF the earth lived for billions of years, why is it only 2013. That proves Jesus is real. Because we use the timeline, since his birth and if he wasn't real, we would've never had a timeline.
Whether the man ever existed or not, is really irrelevant to the real question. Was he the son of god, god in human form, or just a man? Based on the total lack of evidence to support anything supernatural (zero), I would say just a man, if he existed at all.
Cujo

Leask, Canada

#45 May 1, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
IF the earth lived for billions of years, why is it only 2013. That proves Jesus is real. Because we use the timeline, since his birth and if he wasn't real, we would've never had a timeline.
And to use Christian, NON logic, 66 percent of the world's poputlation doesn't believe he was the son of god, therefore you must be wrong.
Amused

Taunton, MA

#46 May 1, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder why atheists say there is no God when there is possibility of one, can see you atheists are struggling to disprove my evidence.
Your evidence is as present as the final 'e' on evidence in the title of the thread. The possibility of your posited deity's existence may exist, but it is as remote as the 'possibility' that Russell's teapot exists. In other words, it is such a remote possibility that sensible people can disregard it. Raising the mere possibility, or more precisely, the unfalsifiable nature of your claim, is a good deal short of proof that your claim is true. There's more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for your possible god.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#47 May 1, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then, You're an idiot and I'm not being rude, it's just a fact.
Fact?

Really?

Where is your PROOF of this... ahem... "fact" of yours?

Hmmm?

Hint: the bible isn't proof-- the bible NEEDS proof, first.

Before it can be used AS proof.

So-- you have LOTS of explaining to do...!

Get busy!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#48 May 1, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's a fact, from what I heard, so you're stupid, but I'm not being rude, look at the facts.
Fact?

Really?

Where is your PROOF of this... ahem... "fact" of yours?

Hmmm?

Hint: the bible isn't proof-- the bible NEEDS proof, first.

Before it can be used AS proof.

So-- you have LOTS of explaining to do...!

Get busy!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#49 May 1, 2013
Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether the man ever existed or not, is really irrelevant to the real question. Was he the son of god, god in human form, or just a man? Based on the total lack of evidence to support anything supernatural (zero), I would say just a man, if he existed at all.
Yep. And a not at all successful man at that-- barely 20 people were close followers-- most didn't know about him at all.

And it took over 300 years before an Official Genuine Jesus-Bible™ was fabricated by Constantine.

That is... kinda proof that no GOD was behind it-- 300 years?

What?

Was god constipated or suffering from a god-cold?(in that he was ill for 300 years...)

Come on! A god ought to be able to BETTER than THAT.

Especially if the frikkin' message is so frikkin' important and shyt...

.... seriously.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#50 May 1, 2013
Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
And to use Christian, NON logic, 66 percent of the world's poputlation doesn't believe he was the son of god, therefore you must be wrong.
Indeed.

After 2000 years of effort? They barely get 33 percent?

And what's worse? Of that 33%, there are FORTY-ONE THOUSAND DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE ... "MESSAGE"!

So that makes any given message, what? Less than one hundredth of the world's population or something?(on average...)

That is not "success"... that is pretty much 99.9999% failure.

That is what THAT is.

41,000 different versions of "christianity".

In a scant 33% of the total world population.

Talk about mixed messages!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#51 May 1, 2013
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Your evidence is as present as the final 'e' on evidence in the title of the thread. The possibility of your posited deity's existence may exist, but it is as remote as the 'possibility' that Russell's teapot exists. In other words, it is such a remote possibility that sensible people can disregard it. Raising the mere possibility, or more precisely, the unfalsifiable nature of your claim, is a good deal short of proof that your claim is true. There's more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for your possible god.
Oh, heck-- there is far more evidence for "alien abductions" than what exists for his jesus character.

Seriously.

And, as Dr Tyson has noted-- each year we move forward, fewer and fewer people buy the silliness of alien abductions ...

This is good; this is progress.

:D

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#52 May 8, 2013
Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether the man ever existed or not, is really irrelevant to the real question. Was he the son of god, god in human form, or just a man? Based on the total lack of evidence to support anything supernatural (zero), I would say just a man, if he existed at all.
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
Amused

Princeton, MA

#53 May 8, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
Really? So, as the newly appointed spokesperson for atheists, could you kindly tell me what 'supernatural force' you claim I believe in?

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#54 May 8, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
Umm... you misspelled "farce'
Cujo

Regina, Canada

#55 May 8, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
Um, no they don't.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#56 May 8, 2013
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Mr. BakingSoda.
Atheism is the belief that no god exists.
Absence of belief would be agnosticism, verificationism, or not being mentally competent to form a conclusion.
None of those is atheism.
Atheism comes from the greek "atheos", meaning "no god".
Atheists hold the belief that there is no god.
You should learn what the position is before you join it.
Your etymology is wrong. "atheos" does not mean "no god", it means "without god". The difference may not see to be that big to you, but it is huge. For example all of science to date is atheistic. Einstein's theories of gravity do not rely on a god to work they work "without god" therefore they are atheistic. The same applies to every other physical, chemical, or biological law or theory.

And to prove my point linky:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...

And quote:

"1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).
The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell.[Armand Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]"

I have noticed that fundamentalists tend to lie when they debate. They do inaccurate quoting and therefore I have a rule for them, don't worry it applies to me too. When a quote is challenged it must be supported by a legitimate link, this is the internet in the 21st century, almost everything you quote is linkable. That way we can see if the quote is correct and if it came from a reliable source. Too often fundies quote other unreliable sources and don't want to make a link since there dishonesty by proxy would be apparent.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#57 May 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your etymology is wrong. "atheos" does not mean "no god", it means "without god". The difference may not see to be that big to you, but it is huge. For example all of science to date is atheistic. Einstein's theories of gravity do not rely on a god to work they work "without god" therefore they are atheistic. The same applies to every other physical, chemical, or biological law or theory.
And to prove my point linky:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php...
And quote:
"1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).
Of course this has already been explained to him. And while he oft likes to point to the 'a-theos' as if that's a positive assertion of belief that no God exists, the *actual* term is of course a-theism, theism being belief in God. Hence it LITERALLY means LACK of belief or DIS-belief in (a) God. And again, dictionary references were provided. He ignores those in favour of those definitions which appear to slant it more in favour of atheism being a belief rather than disbelief - but it's interesting to note that a number of his sources are philosophy and theology encyclopedias, and outright religious encyclopedias. All ignoring the original Greek etymology.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

#58 May 8, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
"May the Force be with you."

Is that the Force you are pretending to be real?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#59 May 8, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually atheists and religions all believe in a supernatural force.
Nope.

You continue to prove you are just a little liar, not worthy of paying attention to.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#60 May 8, 2013
Cujo wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, no they don't.
&fe ature=player_detailpage

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min Simon 93,377
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Fri blacklagoon 3 78
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Fri Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Apr 9 Wisdom of Ages 6,048