Is the bible a fairy tale?
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#1707 May 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Religion can be destructive. So can economic interests, family ties (revenge killings), territorial disputes and a range of other issues.
If we consider WW1, it is suggested that the following played a major role:“The immediate cause of World War I that made all the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.” http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwari...
Neither was the Second World War caused by religion. If we consider present wars, it seems that few have religious differences as the cause.
But maybe we are not considering the real cause – man himself. Religious differences cannot by itself cause wars/conflict, neither can territory nor economic interests. These do not seem to me to be at the “heart of the matter”.
<quoted text>From the information at my disposal, it seems that very few (maybe none) serious scholars dispute the historicity of Jesus. To claim the contrary, is regarded by for instance A N Sherwin-White (not a Christian) as “absurd”.
Christian sources are excluded for the purpose of our discussion as they would seem “predisposed”. Yet, the facts reported in the Bible has never been proved wrong.

You are welcome to provide evidence from serious scholars that disagrees with the historicity of Jesus.
You may also view this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3tsY3oZVsaMXX
I already did..

There isn't any evidence and you know it

"Facts in the Bible have never been proven wrong?" LOL

Rubbish!

Please try to point out a fact that is actually in the bible. You may start with the Tower of Babel.

Your myth versus another...
Is it a coincidence or a copy?

http://jdstone.org/cr/files/mithraschristiani...

1) Hundreds of years before Jesus, according to the Mithraic religion, three Wise Men of Persia came to visit the baby savior-god Mithra, bring him gifts of gold, myrrh and frankincense.
2) Mithra was born on December 25 as told in the “Great Religions of the World”, page 330; “…it was the winter solstice celebrated by ancients as the birthday of Mithraism’s sun god”.
3) According to Mithraism, before Mithra died on a cross, he celebrated a “Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac.
4) After the death of Mithra, his body was laid to rest in a rock tomb.
5) Mithra had a celibate priesthood.
6) Mithra ascended into heaven during the spring (Passover) equinox (the time when the sun crosses the equator making night and day of equal length).

Failed prophecies - ;) Facts

http://faithskeptic.50megs.com/prophecies.htm

Jesus the great myth...

http://jesusneverexisted.com/

No sale - no proof - no evidence ;)
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#1708 May 22, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>
Ontbijt voor het diner is geweldig! IK BEN bosbes of banaan pannenkoeken .... met een glas jus d'orange. De grappige tabaco maakte je sleep all day! Lol Blij dat je terug bent! LOL SL
Hier is een goede grappige tabak site vanaf Amsterdam.

http://www.smokersguide.com/sg/index.html

Vertel me wat de verschillen tussen Dutch gesproken in Zuid-Afrika.

Is het een dialect?
Imhotep

Howey In The Hills, FL

#1709 May 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Religion can be destructive. So can economic interests, family ties (revenge killings), territorial disputes and a by religion.
Christian sources are excluded for the purpose of our discussion as they would seem “predisposed”. Yet, of expertise as well as what they have to gain by what they do/say.
A chap that is highly regarded as a historian, and
,
You are welcome to provide evidence from serious scholars that disagrees with the historicity of Jesus.
You may also view this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3tsY3oZVsaMXX
Sorry that dog won't hunt.
This is a much better YouTube
I double dog dare you not to laugh.

Even if you're a devout Christian you will find this hilarious.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch...

In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators.

Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context. In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt. Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court.
Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult. Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence. For example, the Egyptians certainly recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood. Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts.

STOP !
PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE OF MOSES HERE

"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there.

Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)

How can anyone seriously call the Bible the "Good Book?"

It's cruel and murderous and disgusting.

All Jews should be required to read the entire Old Testament, and all Christians should be required to read both the Old and the New, and then they should all be required to defend it - every, single word of it.
Of course no one ever would because it can't be done. Disingenuously, all anyone ever does is just quote a few precious verses here and there, and ignore the rest.
The "Word of God", far from being inerrant, has always been a work in progress.
CunningLinguist

Winter Garden, FL

#1710 May 22, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Religion can be destructive. So can economic interests, family ties (revenge killings), territorial disputes and a range of other issues.
If we consider WW1, it is suggested that the following played a major role:“The immediate cause of World War I that made all the aforementioned items come into play (alliances, imperialism, militarism, nationalism) was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary.” http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwari...
Neither was the Second World War caused by religion. If we consider present wars, it seems that few have religious differences as the cause.
But maybe we are not considering the real cause – man himself. Religious differences cannot by itself cause wars/conflict, neither can territory nor economic interests. These do not seem to me to be at the “heart of the matter”.
<quoted text>From the information at my disposal, it seems that very few (maybe none) serious scholars dispute the historicity of Jesus. To claim the contrary, is regarded by for instance A N Sherwin-White (not a Christian) as “absurd”.
Christian sources are excluded for the purpose of our discussion as they would seem “predisposed”. Yet, the facts reported in the Bible has never been proved wrong.
As a matter of fact Luke is regarded as an excellent historian by for instance Sir William Ramsay,” It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth”. He was from the liberal German historical schools, known for its scholarship, but taught that the New Testament was not a historical document.
When I evaluate the credibility of resources, I usually look at their position within their area of expertise as well as what they have to gain by what they do/say.
A chap that is highly regarded as a historian, and not a Christian himself, is hardly likely to report on a “person” that he has not by diligent study established as a real person. It may destroy his career as a historian. Refer in this respect to Tacitus. He mentions “Christians, who were hated for their enormities.”
Suetonius (who was apparently born 69AD) reported on Christians. As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." (Life of Claudius 25.4). He was a Roman historian, who is unlikely to refer to Christ especially in view of the negative connotation.
Julius Africanus quotes Tallus comments “Tallus' comments about the darkness that enveloped the land during the late afternoon hours when Jesus died on the cross.”. The issue is not whether there was a “natural” explanation, but that it in fact happened at the time of Jesus’ death and they were trying to account for it
Mara Bar-Serapion: Syrian stoic philosopher (ideal being moral and intellectual perfectionism) in a letter to his son, compared Jesus (not his teachings) to philosophers Socrates and Pythagoras.
The Babylonian Talmud. These guys (Sanhedrin) were not really very supportive of Christianity. As indication of their animosity,they disputed the virgin birth, claiming Mary was a “whore”. Yet they mention Jesus. If Jesus was a myth, they would hardly do that?
You are welcome to provide evidence from serious scholars that disagrees with the historicity of Jesus.
You may also view this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =3tsY3oZVsaMXX
How about 10:32 minutes of reality?
ALL pictures for the reading impaired! IN LIVINIG COLOUR
And... a nice soundtrack to boot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Ancient Egyptian Religion vs Christianity - The Story Between Horus and Jesus

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1711 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Lets see the proof of the universe expanding into nothingness?[/QUOTE]
Not the claim.
Are you sure that a space is not already there? Prove that there is not a space that is absence of Time, Energy and matter.
A balloon has a boundary. It's called rubber and the same things is in the balloon as what's outside of the balloon. It's simply a pressure difference.
The universe is creating itself.
A balloon is nothing of the sort.
Once again showing dramatically that you don't understand what I am attempting to say.

The rubber *is* the balloon. That is the two dimensional surface in this example. The rubber (the balloon) is the boundary between what is inside and what is outside. But the rubber *itself* has no boundary--it is continuous around the balloon (no nozzle).

Now, once again, this is an *analogy*. In the analogy, the two-dimensional *rubber balloon* is expanding. It does not, itself, have a boundary. But it is the boundary between what is inside and what is outside. In this analogy, the rubber is what is analogous to *space*. The radius is analogous to *time*. So the analogy has two dimensions of space (the balloon itself--latitude and longitude give the two dimensions) and one of time (the radius). A later time corresponds to a larger radius, which gives a larger balloon.

Now, this is an analogy to the case where space itself is finite in volume (just as the spherical balloon is finite in *area*). Let's analyze this case a bit before we proceed.

First, for space with a finite volume, if you decide to travel for long enough in any direction (up, down, left, right, forward, backward, etc), you will eventually come back to where you started. This is analogous to the situation on the balloon where, if you *stay on the balloon*(analogous to space at one time), and go any direction, you will eventually go around the balloon.

Think about that one for a while. No boundary *in space*: any direction you go, you come back to the starting point. Same as there is no boundary *on the balloon*: you come back to the start.

Next, a later time means the volume of the universe is larger: the universe has expanded. Again, this is in analogy with the *radius* of the balloon being time.

Next, the rubber (space) is the boundary between the inside (smaller radius=earlier time) and the outside (larger radius=later time). In exactly the same way, space at any one time (the present) is the boundary between the past and the future.

So, now go and think about this analogy for a while. Make sure you actually understand what the different aspects of the balloon analogy actually are representing. In particular, the rubber itself (the balloon) represents *all of space* at some single time. Earlier times correspond to smaller balloons and later times correspond to larger balloons.

When you have shown you understand the analogy we can address other aspects.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1712 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Ok your inside the balloon and a fraction of the size of a atom why can't you see the world outside of your ballon? You claim it doesn't exist even though you can't prove it doesn't exist.
One day your balloon will pop.[/QUOTE]

In the analogy, the inside of the balloon represents *the past*, not the stuff in the universe right now. The outside of the balloon represents *the future*, not 'nothing outside the universe'. The balloon *itself* represents *all of space*. The radius of the balloon represents *time*.

Now, go and think a bit about this and at least recognize where you did not understand the analogy up to now.
KJV

United States

#1713 May 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Lets see the proof of the universe expanding into nothingness?"

Not the claim.

[QUOTE]Are you sure that a space is not already there? Prove that there is not a space that is absence of Time, Energy and matter.
A balloon has a boundary. It's called rubber and the same things is in the balloon as what's outside of the balloon. It's simply a pressure difference.
The universe is creating itself.
A balloon is nothing of the sort. "

Once again showing dramatically that you don't understand what I am attempting to say.

The rubber *is* the balloon. That is the two dimensional surface in this example. The rubber (the balloon) is the boundary between what is inside and what is outside. But the rubber *itself* has no boundary--it is continuous around the balloon (no nozzle).

Now, once again, this is an *analogy*. In the analogy, the two-dimensional *rubber balloon* is expanding. It does not, itself, have a boundary. But it is the boundary between what is inside and what is outside. In this analogy, the rubber is what is analogous to *space*. The radius is analogous to *time*. So the analogy has two dimensions of space (the balloon itself--latitude and longitude give the two dimensions) and one of time (the radius). A later time corresponds to a larger radius, which gives a larger balloon.

Now, this is an analogy to the case where space itself is finite in volume (just as the spherical balloon is finite in *area*). Let's analyze this case a bit before we proceed.

First, for space with a finite volume, if you decide to travel for long enough in any direction (up, down, left, right, forward, backward, etc), you will eventually come back to where you started. This is analogous to the situation on the balloon where, if you *stay on the balloon*(analogous to space at one time), and go any direction, you will eventually go around the balloon.

Think about that one for a while. No boundary *in space*: any direction you go, you come back to the starting point. Same as there is no boundary *on the balloon*: you come back to the start.

Next, a later time means the volume of the universe is larger: the universe has expanded. Again, this is in analogy with the *radius* of the balloon being time.

Next, the rubber (space) is the boundary between the inside (smaller radius=earlier time) and the outside (larger radius=later time). In exactly the same way, space at any one time (the present) is the boundary between the past and the future.

So, now go and think about this analogy for a while. Make sure you actually understand what the different aspects of the balloon analogy actually are representing. In particular, the rubber itself (the balloon) represents *all of space* at some single time. Earlier times correspond to smaller balloons and later times correspond to larger balloons.

When you have shown you understand the analogy we can address other aspects.
So the rubber (pretending does not get thinner until it breaks) is the universe not inside of the ballon. Got it. It expanse and bows in or out depending on other forces like Hands or black holes. Also pretending it's 2 D it would then have no edges. Got it.

Our universe exist in 4 D there is a 3 D edge to our universe. It's on the edge of time and one is also on the edge of space.

Our universe is not stretching it is creating more universe faster and faster. It doing just the opposite of what science thinks it should be doing. So they search for the answer but right now
It don't add up.

Your balloon resist expansion our universe is expanding like a bike going down hill.
KJV

United States

#1714 May 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Ok your inside the balloon and a fraction of the size of a atom why can't you see the world outside of your ballon? You claim it doesn't exist even though you can't prove it doesn't exist.
One day your balloon will pop. "

In the analogy, the inside of the balloon represents *the past*, not the stuff in the universe right now. The outside of the balloon represents *the future*, not 'nothing outside the universe'. The balloon *itself* represents *all of space*. The radius of the balloon represents *time*.

Now, go and think a bit about this and at least recognize where you did not understand the analogy up to now.
Got it.

So because you're on a 2 D plane called the rubber of a ballon you should be able to see all that is not in contact with The balloon? God is not visible from the balloon.

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#1715 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Got it.
So because you're on a 2 D plane called the rubber of a ballon you should be able to see all that is not in contact with The balloon? God is not visible from the balloon.[/QUOTE]

God is not visible in any perspective , except of course the imaginary.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#1716 May 22, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>I do not believe in original sin, that is a Christian myth. Only the wicked continue to sin and never repent. God looked on his creation and saw that it was good, not perfect. There's no such thing as perfection. God is only human, we were created in his image and likeness.
Original sin is the idea that we are sinners just for being human. It does not matter how wicked we are.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1717 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
So the rubber (pretending does not get thinner until it breaks) is the universe not inside of the ballon. Got it. It expanse and bows in or out depending on other forces like Hands or black holes. Also pretending it's 2 D it would then have no edges. Got it.
Our universe exist in 4 D there is a 3 D edge to our universe. It's on the edge of time and one is also on the edge of space.
Not quite. The *present*, consisting of all space *at one time* is the boundary between the past and the future, just like the balloon is the boundary between the inside and the outside. Just like the balloon itself has no edges (no boundary), space has no boundary (even though it is the boundary between the past and the future).
Our universe is not stretching it is creating more universe faster and faster.
Actually, the mass of the universe acts like the tension in the balloon and the dark energy acts like the pressure inside the balloon. So, yes, the universe is expanding faster and faster because of the dark energy.
It doing just the opposite of what science thinks it should be doing. So they search for the answer but right now
It don't add up.
Actually, it works quite well with a non-zero cosmological constant (also known as dark energy).
Your balloon resist expansion our universe is expanding like a bike going down hill.
Huh?

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#1718 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Original sin is the idea that we are sinners just for being human. It does not matter how wicked we are.
Pack your bags you're going on a guilt trip....
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#1719 May 22, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Original sin is the idea that we are sinners just for being human. It does not matter how wicked we are.
a horrid idea, which enables the priestly class to extort money or goods from more people, and not just the obvious folks who have done something criminal. combined with the notion of a hot hell, it is a very profitable doctrine.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1721 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Actually, the mass of the universe acts like the tension in the balloon and the dark energy acts like the pressure inside the balloon. So, yes, the universe is expanding faster and faster because of the dark energy"
Funny saying its because of dark energy and they don't even know what dark energy is.
Weird!
"Huh?" Picking up speed.......
"Actually, it works quite well with a non-zero cosmological constant (also known as dark energy)."
They expected the expansion to slow and then stop and then everything was to start collapsing in on its self "gravity"[/QUOTE]
No, they did NOT expect that to happen. That was *one* of the possibilities, but another was that the expansion would continue forever. The surprise was that the rate of expansion is accelerating instead of slowing. The expectation was that the rate would slow (but not necessarily stop), but that was because most people thought the cosmological constant would be zero (after Einstein's failed introduction of it). So, while a non-zero value was a surprise, it fit easily into the theory that had a non-zero value quite easily.

Now, the question of what it *is* is another kettle of fish. Whatever it is, it represents an energy of a vacuum. There are good reasons in quantum mechanics to expect that the energy of a vacuum would be non-zero, but the surprise is that the actual value is so small, but still non-zero.
Well it's not doing what makes sense.
So the scrabbling started and the invention of dark energy.
Actually, the cosmological constant was introduced by Einstein very early on. He introduced it because he had a bias in favor of a static universe. it turns out he was right in having a non-zero value, but was wrong about the static universe and the actual value of the CC.
No proof of this, no clue what it is, no idea where it is or what's causing it. So they search.
And you buy it like fact.
I take it as fact that the data fits the theory with a non-zero CC. How to interpret that fact is still very much up in the air.
KJV

United States

#1722 May 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"Actually, the mass of the universe acts like the tension in the balloon and the dark energy acts like the pressure inside the balloon. So, yes, the universe is expanding faster and faster because of the dark energy"
Funny saying its because of dark energy and they don't even know what dark energy is.
Weird!
"Huh?" Picking up speed.......
"Actually, it works quite well with a non-zero cosmological constant (also known as dark energy)."
They expected the expansion to slow and then stop and then everything was to start collapsing in on its self "gravity""

No, they did NOT expect that to happen. That was *one* of the possibilities, but another was that the expansion would continue forever. The surprise was that the rate of expansion is accelerating instead of slowing. The expectation was that the rate would slow (but not necessarily stop), but that was because most people thought the cosmological constant would be zero (after Einstein's failed introduction of it). So, while a non-zero value was a surprise, it fit easily into the theory that had a non-zero value quite easily.

Now, the question of what it *is* is another kettle of fish. Whatever it is, it represents an energy of a vacuum. There are good reasons in quantum mechanics to expect that the energy of a vacuum would be non-zero, but the surprise is that the actual value is so small, but still non-zero.

[QUOTE]Well it's not doing what makes sense.
So the scrabbling started and the invention of dark energy."

Actually, the cosmological constant was introduced by Einstein very early on. He introduced it because he had a bias in favor of a static universe. it turns out he was right in having a non-zero value, but was wrong about the static universe and the actual value of the CC.

[QUOTE] No proof of this, no clue what it is, no idea where it is or what's causing it. So they search.
And you buy it like fact.
"

I take it as fact that the data fits the theory with a non-zero CC. How to interpret that fact is still very much up in the air.
"No, they did NOT expect that to happen".

This is BS. They did expect it and why would you not? Back then there was no dark energy all they new was gravity so why would the universe once the energy of the BB was spent not start pulling back together.

Once science found out they were really wrong on that point dark energy was proposed. Still no clue to what it is.
But they are looking!

“Wrath”

Since: Dec 10

Is revenant

#1723 May 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
"No, they did NOT expect that to happen".
This is BS. They did expect it and why would you not? Back then there was no dark energy all they new was gravity so why would the universe once the energy of the BB was spent not start pulling back together.
Once science found out they were really wrong on that point dark energy was proposed. Still no clue to what it is.
But they are looking!
[/QUOTE]
Astronomy and cosmologists as well as astrophysicists have discovered a great many things in the last 20 years. Much which caused paradigm shifts in thinking, lately these shifts have come often, and challenging our understanding but strengthening our knowledge base to understand our universe. The one thing we know for sure, is that we don't know much of anything for sure, when it comes to the universe. But the strength of our physics is in knowing what we have come to understand is growing.

The greatest point to make here is in your words.

"Once science found out they were really wrong on that point dark energy was proposed"

Science found out it was wrong, thus causing a paradigm shift.
This is exactly it's strength ,and exactly how we learn.
We always find an answer, though some are tough and can take time.
Eventually the answers come and what we discover is taught to all who care to know. From Galileo to Elon Musk what we learn is there for us.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1724 May 22, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Buck pigeon chess is not a victory, no matter how much the pigeon declares it so.
"Pigeon chess" is the universal atheist alibi on this forum.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#1725 May 22, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Spidey Senses?
You're awesome.
When you butcher a hog, what do you do with the esophagus?
I usually just swallow a few beers with it.

Do the butcherin' with my hands, mostly.

Did I tell you about the time daddy made me tackle a 500 pound boar with tusks in a mudhole and wrench a truck spring out of it's throat it was choking on?

That was some messy encounter.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#1726 May 22, 2013
CunningLinguist wrote:
<quoted text>
How about 10:32 minutes of reality?
ALL pictures for the reading impaired! IN LIVINIG COLOUR
And... a nice soundtrack to boot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =IAE5aC9G-9cXX
Ancient Egyptian Religion vs Christianity - The Story Between Horus and Jesus
Please indicate why this little snippet destroys the scholarly research of people living very close to the time of Jesus? If you would not mind, please provide reference to articles by serious scholars proving beyond doubt that the Bible facts are wrong. Claims casting doubt or suspicion are a dime a dozen, but that is different to factual proof.
Maybe you regard youtube videos placed by a person apparently without credentials as a scholarly item. It is not.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#1727 May 22, 2013
Why did you use tusks to tackle an animal?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I usually just swallow a few beers with it.
Do the butcherin' with my hands, mostly.
Did I tell you about the time daddy made me tackle a 500 pound boar with tusks in a mudhole and wrench a truck spring out of it's throat it was choking on?
That was some messy encounter.

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
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 32 min Chazofsaints 5,694
A Universe from Nothing? 34 min Richardfs 515
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Thinking 18,518
Atheism is a mental illness 2 hr Thinking 10
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Thinking 43,194
News Why I quit atheism 5 hr Chazofsaints 705
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr Chazofsaints 3,844
Good arguments against Christianity 6 hr Thinking 205
More from around the web