Why Atheism Will Replace Religion

Aug 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Please note that for this article "Atheism" also includes agnostics, deists, pagans, wiccans... in other words non-religious.

You will notice this is a statement of fact. And to be fact it is supported by evidence (see references below). Now you can have "faith" that this is not true, but by the very definition of faith, that is just wishful thinking.
Comments
3,681 - 3,700 of 14,385 Comments Last updated Nov 23, 2013

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3858
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're stuck on your sciences word species. 4 species of Rabbit LOL
Really? LOL
There is one Kind of Rabbit. As I specified in my post. Macro Evolution is one KIND giving rise to another KIND.
OK, please define what you mean by a 'kind'. Are all insects the same kind? All butterflies? All mammals? All primates?

We have a documented example of speciation. That shows evolution in action. If *your* understanding of evolution doesn't says that this was, in fact, evolution, then the problem is in your understanding of the concept.
"You didn't come here to learn about evolution"
Why would I? Evolution is a MYTH just as the Big Bang, Spontaneous Life is.
Well, even if you believe this, you might want to learn what others think and attempt to understand why they think that way. If nothing else, it leads to better discussion.

But, more importantly, you may be wrong and in attempting to learn why others think they way they do, you might have to re-think your own prejudices and actually learn how the real world functions.

The Big bang is a fact: the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state where nuclear reactions were happening everywhere. The evidence is overwhelming concerning this point. That you refuse to actually understand what the science says only shows that you want to hold on to your dogmatic beliefs and that truth is not your goal: only winning.
Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.
Yes, indeed. So? Does that show that evolution didn't happen? Does it show that we don't have documentation of *any* inheritance lines? How does the rarity of the data negate the conclusions we can make from the data available to us?
Plus, fossils may be set in stone, but they're far from impervious. Like all rocks, they erode, melt and fragment. Factor in all the fossils we haven't uncovered with the ones we can't decipher properly (due to partial fossilization or insufficient technology), and the fossil record gets even spottier."
Again, yes indeed. Does that negate the conclusion that species have changed over time? Does it negate the conclusion that new species appear, change and disappear? No. So evolution does happen.
We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2
And this is a flat-out lie. We see changes in the species of trilobites over time. We see changes in the species of brachiopods over time. We see changes in the species of snails over time (Stephen Gould started out looking at evolution of snails).
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!
Simply false. The problem is, of course, the invertebrates are not as 'sexy' as vertebrates, so they don't get as much press, but they are very much studied and the pattern of change over time in invertebrates *is* a significant collection of data in favor of the theory of evolution.

Of course, the response will be that trilobites are all 'the same kind', so the evolution of different trilobite species, their radiation and decline over the course of hundreds of millions of years, is deemed irrelevant. Just shows how far the fundies will go to deny reality.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3859
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is the biggest enemy of any religions. It is always the winner of the reality race!
Is it? It can't answer the question as to why we're here, something man has pondered since the dawn of time, and will continue to do so until the end of time. Faith and science are not incompatible.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3860
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha! Such a poor dodge you made. Your deity is an imagined one. It had no contribution to the beginnings of life or evolution of species. It's very easy to show this - ready?
How do you demonstrate your deity created DNA?
Answer: You cannot. You'll dodge or write something obtuse and sarcastic, or include a special plea to your mythological text, but you won't be able to demonstrate that your deity exists or had anything to do with DNA.
But by all means, please show us the research that can be performed to suggest that your deity created DNA, or that DNA is created. I mean...right now...all science demonstrates, both in the lab and out of it, that DNA is the product of evolution and that gene pools continue to evolve.
We need a "slam dunk" judge it icon.
Fitz

Saint Clair Shores, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3861
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Define 'kind'.
What sort of evidence do you think is required to show evolution? be specific.
In particular, evolution does NOT predict that a cat will give birth to a dog. Or that any generation will be significantly different than the previous. But it *does* say that the tiny difference from one generation to the next will add up to make larger changes.
<quoted text>
Yes, you can spam. The general tactic is to respond to an intermediate fossil by asking for the two intermediates on each side. Or to take advantage of the simple fact that the fossil record is sparse to argue that we can't tell family similarities and how they change over time. Yes, many of the intermediates are missing. That is to be expected from the fact that fossilization is rare and uneven. You don't tend to get fossils formed at the top of mountains. But, we do have plenty of fossils showing the major transitions at the family level across many different inheritance lines. We also have the genetic evidence showing the inheritance patterns.
It was my understanding that the problems evolutionary theory has regarding the lack of a fossil record concerns the origins of completeley differnet species that rely on genetic mutations.

It is the lack of a fossil record indicating the billions and billions of random mutations neccesary to account for the massive diversity amoung different species that inhabit the planet.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3862
Jan 19, 2013
 
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
It was my understanding that the problems evolutionary theory has regarding the lack of a fossil record concerns the origins of completeley differnet species that rely on genetic mutations.
No, part of the problem is that speciation often happens in small populations, which makes the likelihood of a fossil from the speciation time period low.
It is the lack of a fossil record indicating the billions and billions of random mutations neccesary to account for the massive diversity amoung different species that inhabit the planet.
And that is a problem in your understanding. It would not take 'billions and billions' of mutations to produce any specific line. A few changes in the regulatory genes can produce large changes in overall structure. Now, we do have a problem that mountain species, for example, are not well represented in the fossil record. the terrain itself makes it far less likely that fossilization will occur. So, if you are studying the history of a mountainous species with a small population during speciation, you are doubly unlikely to get relevant fossils.

Also, you don't get fossilization of the genes, only of the individual organisms. That means that the family histories have to be determined from whatever fossils survive: generally only the hard parts of the bodies. While fossils of the soft parts (skin, internal organs, etc) do exist, they are much, much more rare than of fossils of bones and shells.

But we can still determine the path taken by species as they change over time due to environment. And that change *is* evolution.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3863
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Please feel free to list your proof of the fact (as you put it) of evolution. I'm not talking of the simply turning on or off genes, I am talking of macro evolution where one kind produces another kind.
And if you try to play the "there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution card" you might want to look here first.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
Yup your own Berkeley University.
And if you try the old fossil record thing I can spam thousands of articles from science journals and other sources that openly admit to an incomplete fossil record with many missing intermediate fossil.
Ok now list your proof!
The version of "macroevolution" that has a chicken hatching a horse from an egg is religitard bull pucky. Such a thing has never happened an never will. Evolution works like colors on a color wheel, you start with red and progressively each dot is slightly different, eventually you are in blue territory which is nothing like red, but at no point did you have a red/blue dot.

Get it? Bet not!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3864
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Define 'kind'.

What sort of evidence do you think is required to show evolution? be specific.

In particular, evolution does NOT predict that a cat will give birth to a dog. Or that any generation will be significantly different than the previous. But it *does* say that the tiny difference from one generation to the next will add up to make larger changes.

[QUOTE]And if you try the old fossil record thing I can spam thousands of articles from science journals and other sources that openly admit to an incomplete fossil record with many missing intermediate fossil.
Ok now list your proof!
"

Yes, you can spam. The general tactic is to respond to an intermediate fossil by asking for the two intermediates on each side. Or to take advantage of the simple fact that the fossil record is sparse to argue that we can't tell family similarities and how they change over time. Yes, many of the intermediates are missing. That is to be expected from the fact that fossilization is rare and uneven. You don't tend to get fossils formed at the top of mountains. But, we do have plenty of fossils showing the major transitions at the family level across many different inheritance lines. We also have the genetic evidence showing the inheritance patterns.
"It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:

Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.

Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.

Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."

Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.

Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.

Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.

Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.

Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.

Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative."

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3865
Jan 19, 2013
 
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>Data in the USA indicate quite the opposite. The higher the level of education, the more likely the individual attends church.
David, that's pretty much what he said, "The more they are educated the less they get religious! "
Dan wrote:
While liberal churches in America are losing members, nearly all conservative churches are growing and many quite rapidly.
Bummer.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3866
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>OK,

The Big bang is a fact:
.
"The Big bang is a fact: the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state where nuclear reactions were happening everywhere"

Which Big Bang do you believe in?

The bouncing Big Bang?
The exploding spinning Singularity?
Or the "when nothing exploded Big Bang"?

Did I miss any?

Interesting you claiming fact when science can't even come together on one type of Big Bang.

Your data on the Big Bang that has you claiming fact can be explained as other possibilities. No you don't have facts of the Big Bang you merely have conclusions.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3867
Jan 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
So to you it matters not that world leaders in archeology are uncovering Nazareth ruins and have concluded that Nazareth was indeed a town that existed in the days of Christ. Go Figure!
The city of London existed in the days of the Sherlock Holmes stories. There's even a Baker Street, and a 221 B Baker St (honorary). Doesn't mean Holmes was a real person.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3868
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae — Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae — Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae — Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae — Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
Caprinae — Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia — Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae — Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
Thus the created kind corresponds roughly to the family level of taxonomic classification, and possibly even the order with the notable exception of humanity wherein the genus is representative."
I see. So you want to see family level evolution, which tends to take millions of years in the wild, happen in a single generation, or even a few hundred generations? You don't see the problem with this???

Family level changes take a long time to happen *because* they are larger changes. But we do have fossil records of many transitions between family level groups. The most obvious one is that between certain dinosaurs and early birds, but this is hardly the only known transition. Another is the very well documented one between the reptiles and the early mammals. Another is between the rhipidistian fishes and the early amphibians. The triobites had several different orders and we have documentation of the transitions between this level (which is above the family level) for them.

So, no, we simply do not expect to see a new family develop within the time span of human history, especially a vertebrate family. The suggestion that evolution stands or falls on our ability to see this is just silly. It is similar to expecting to see a single star go through several stages of its cycle as we watch.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3869
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You're stuck on your sciences word species. 4 species of Rabbit LOL
Really? LOL
There is one Kind of Rabbit. As I specified in my post. Macro Evolution is one KIND giving rise to another KIND.
"You didn't come here to learn about evolution"
Why would I? Evolution is a MYTH just as the Big Bang, Spontaneous Life is.
Please, take a basic science class.
Langoliers wrote:
"The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete.
That's what one would expect! Percentage wise, very few dead things become fossilized.
Langoliers wrote:
Here's one major reason why: Sediment has to cover an organism's remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen. Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.
Csnip)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta...
Did you understand any of that?
Langoliers wrote:
"Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fred Williams
January 2002

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person. The purpose of this article is to expose this sleight-of-hand, which will then dissolve the false illusion it creates. Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion exposed, the truth can clearly be seen – the fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution.
The Sleight-of-Hand
Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!
Why do fundies think using the caps lock key makes up for their lack of a rational argument?
Langoliers wrote:
The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there."
And, of course, it makes sense that you would find more of some types of animals than of others.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3870
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Big bang is a fact: the universe is expanding from a hot, dense state where nuclear reactions were happening everywhere"
Which Big Bang do you believe in?
The bouncing Big Bang?
The exploding spinning Singularity?
Or the "when nothing exploded Big Bang"?
Did I miss any?
Interesting you claiming fact when science can't even come together on one type of Big Bang.
Your data on the Big Bang that has you claiming fact can be explained as other possibilities. No you don't have facts of the Big Bang you merely have conclusions.
As I said, it is a fact that the universe is currently expanding and was once hotter and denser than it is now. It is also a fact that it was once hot and dense enough for nuclear reactions to happen everywhere. What happened before about 10^(-9) seconds into the expansion phase, we simply don't have evidence to say.

The 'spinning singularity' is one I have never seen in any scientific context. The Big Bounce is a possibility, depending on which version of quantum gravity is correct. The 'something from nothing' is another possibility as a quantum fluctuation from a vacuum (the version of nothing implied here).

The current scientific consensus is called the LCDM theory (It uses the greek letter lambda instead of L, though). What happened before that theory kicks in, we simply do not know because we simply do not have any evidence from that time period. And science, unlike religion, is evidence driven.

We have conclusions based on the evidence. No other theory fits the evidence at this point. If you have an alternative, please publish it so it can be discussed. But that alternative better be able to explain the *details* of the fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation, the abundances of light elements, the red-shifts of distant galaxies, the effects seen via gravitational lensing, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, etc.

I won't hold my breath.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3871
Jan 19, 2013
 
Henry wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus died approximately 2000 years ago as human being. Thin that he is misused as a cult figure.
There are people who believe Jesus is totally fictional, I think their arguments are interesting. I'm not 100% convinced that Jesus is pure fiction, as it would be impossible to prove there wasn't some street preacher with a small following that created the Jesus myth.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3872
Jan 19, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Please, take a basic science class.

Langoliers wrote, "
"The fossil record, however, is quite incomplete."

That's what one would expect! Percentage wise, very few dead things become fossilized.

Langoliers wrote, "
Here's one major reason why: Sediment has to cover an organism's remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen. Fossilization odds increase if the organism happened to exist in large numbers or lived in or around sediment. For example, trilobites, ancient marine arthropods, met both criteria, so they're rather common fossils. The Tyrannosaurus rex, however, is far rarer. It was large and land-dwelling, and as a top predator made up a far smaller percentage of the population.
Csnip)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmenta... ;

Did you understand any of that?
Langoliers wrote, "
"Exposing the Evolutionist’s Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
Fred Williams
January 2002

One of the most effective pitches evolutionists use to sell their theory is their claim that the fossil record supports evolution. This could not be farther from the truth; in fact the fossil record provides powerful and overwhelming evidence that evolution did not occur on earth. So how is the evolutionist able to effectively sell to their audience the precise opposite of what the data shows? They achieve this by employing a clever sleight-of-hand with the fossil data that can easily be missed by any reasonable person. The purpose of this article is to expose this sleight-of-hand, which will then dissolve the false illusion it creates. Once the curtain is pulled and the illusion exposed, the truth can clearly be seen – the fossil record is an overwhelming and devastating contradiction to evolution.
The Sleight-of-Hand
Here’s the catch, the magic behind the illusion. Whenever an evolutionist presents his line of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, he will without fail, virtually every time, present a vertebrate transitional fossil. Why is this important? The evolutionist is failing to mention to his audience that vertebrates constitute less than .01% of the entire fossil record, and of these fossils, most species are represented by a bone or less!1 What about the other 99.99% of the fossil record? That’s the other key piece of information the evolutionist is withholding from you. Complex invertebrates make up the vast majority of this portion of the record, roughly 95%. We have cataloged literally millions of different species of these very complex creatures, and we have entire fossils, not just pieces here and there. In this rich and virtually complete portion of the fossil record, there is not a single sign of evolution, whatsoever!!!2
If evolution were true, the fossil record should be littered with countless examples showing many different transitions leading up to the millions of species of these complex creatures. YET WE DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE EXAMPLE! NOT EVEN ONE!"

Why do fundies think using the caps lock key makes up for their lack of a rational argument?

Langoliers wrote, "
The remarkable completeness of this vast portion of the fossil record thwarts evolutionists from cooking up "transitionals" because speculation is not so easy when you have entire specimens. There is not the wild guesswork inherent when dealing with willy-nilly fragments of a tooth here, a leg bone there.""

And, of course, it makes sense that you would find more of some types of animals than of others.
"Why do fundies think using the caps lock key makes up for their lack of a rational argument? "

The article was quoted as is, I capitalized nothing.

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3873
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is very important not to confuse the "created kind" with the modern use of the word species. Although animals like the fox and coyote might be considered different taxonomic species, they are still parts of the same "kind" of animal. The created kind is thought to be more often synonymous with the "Family" level of classification in the taxonomic hierarchy; at least in mammals; and occasionally it can extend as high as the order level. Here are some examples:
Felidae — Scientists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
And they started giving birth to domestic cats after the flood?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3874
Jan 19, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>The city of London existed in the days of the Sherlock Holmes stories. There's even a Baker Street, and a 221 B Baker St (honorary). Doesn't mean Holmes was a real person.
Wow thanks for that tidbit.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3875
Jan 19, 2013
 
Not replace just be the normal...As time goes by we leave behind cults and myth. Religion is crutch for weak minded scared sheep....

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3876
Jan 19, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"Why do fundies think using the caps lock key makes up for their lack of a rational argument? "
The article was quoted as is, I capitalized nothing.
The author of the article is a fundie.

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3877
Jan 19, 2013
 
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
There are people who believe Jesus is totally fictional, I think their arguments are interesting. I'm not 100% convinced that Jesus is pure fiction, as it would be impossible to prove there wasn't some street preacher with a small following that created the Jesus myth.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Even if the Bible Jesus is a legend based on one character or an amalgamation of several individuals in the past, the end result is the character as described in the bible, multiplying dead fish and inanimate loaves of bread, transubstantiating liquids, reanimating corpses, and levitating into the sky. THAT Jesus never existed.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

14 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 47 min Liam R 12
Of Interest InTheNews 58 min Reason Personified 2
Our world came from nothing? 59 min Patrick 181
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 1 hr Aura Mytha 224,013
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr Patrick 21,376
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 6 hr Buck Crick 356
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 8 hr Thinking 831
•••
•••