butterflylion:



You don't seem to understand why he asked you for a description of your paternal grandpa.

You answered by saying your paternal grandpa of the 6th generation died many years ago. You've never meet him, you don't know him. You don't even know his name or have any idea about him because he died many years ago and your parents and grand parents never told you anything about him.

However despite all you just said regarding your 6th generation grandpa you still know you had one and he once lived.

You have no data to hold onto regarding him but there is proof all around you that he once existed. True?

There is proof your generation had a beginning even though you know nothing about that beginning but you know there was one. Your dad is proof of that, your grandpa is, your great grandpa is, your great grand PA thrice removed is and so on until you enter the place of no data such as you have said about your 6th generation grandpa. Am I wrong?

This is not argument so try not to start one. This is a simple question.

What is this pile of hot thrash? Unless if you agree that Jesus is dead I don't see how you are making any sense ?

rhektor:


Does his death many years ago make him a fiction? Now you can see what you look like when you call Jesus a fiction.

Jesus is a mythology character. He is also dead just like my grandfather of the 6th generation thatbisbwhy you can not describe him. You believe he is alive but in reality he is dead. The Jesus you believe is alive is fictional. The real one is dead. He died about 2000 years ago.

STUPUDTHEISTS:


Honestly you got time for theists' dumb back and forth. I've spotted the problem with that analogy already, but he couldn't. And they keep wondering why unbelievers diss em daily for their small brain. Lol

Unless he admit Jesus is dead, I don't see how his analogy is helping him.

I tire oo.

dalaman:


Jesus is a mythology character. He is also dead just like my grandfather of the 6th generation thatbisbwhy you can not describe him. You believe he is alive but in reality he is dead. The Jesus you believe is alive is fictional. The real one is dead. He died about 2000 years ago.

Now suddenly he was alive and died many years ago? But before now he was not real. You can go on an keep deceiving yourself and your beloved atheist community

rhektor:


Now suddenly he was alive and died many years ago? But before now he was not real. You can go on an keep deceiving yourself and your beloved atheist community

There was a man named Jesus that lived about 2000 years ago. He died and after his death his followers started elevated him to a God. They formed stories about him, how he was born through a virgin (fiction ), how he performed many fictitious wonders like walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead etc, they said he was killed and later came back to life (fiction ) and claim he is still alive to this day (more fiction)

The real Jesus died 2000 years ago. Any additional story about him being alive remains fictional. That's why you can not even give me a basic description of him even though yu claim to interact with him.

You can't because you are dealing with a fictional being.

dalaman:


What is this pile of hot thrash? Unless if you agree that Jesus is dead I don't see how you are making any sense ?

As expected you prefer making no sense to the sense I wish to introduce to you.

We are talking about existence (life) and not death. I never mentioned the death of your 6th generation grandpa but his existence so your question which I should be the one asking you is did Jesus ever exist?

Let's start from the beginning before we get to his death. So tell me, do you believe Jesus ever existed?

dalaman:


There was a man named Jesus that lived about 2000 years ago. He died and after his death his followers started elevated him to a God. They formed stories about him, how he was born through a virgin (fiction ), how he performed many fictitious wonders like walk on water, turn water to wine, raise the dead etc, they said he was killed and later came back to life (fiction ) and claim he is still alive to this day (more fiction)

The real Jesus died 2000 years ago. Any additional story about him being alive remains fictional. That's why you can not even give me a basic description of him even though yu claim to interact with him.

You can't because you are dealing with a fictional being.

Dalaman version of history. You state it like you were there as it happens. Your hypocrisy is out of this world

butterflylion:


As expected you prefer making no sense to the sense I wish to introduce to you.

We are talking about existence (life) and not death. I never mentioned the death of your 6th generation grandpa but his existence so your question which I should be the one asking you is did Jesus ever exist?

Let's start from the beginning before we get to his death. So tell me, do you believe Jesus ever existed?

Yeah I believe there was a man behind the legend just as I also believe that there was a man behind the Mohammed legend.

rhektor:


Dalaman version of history. You state it like you were there as it happens. Your hypocrisy is out of this world

I stated what was fictional. Virgin birth etc.

dalaman:


Yeah I believe there was a man behind the legend just as I also believe that there was a man behind the Mohammed legend.

Please this is not about muhammad so leave him out of it.

You BELIEVE or you KNOW a man named Jesus existed?

butterflylion:


Please this is not about muhammad so leave him out of it.

You BELIEVE or you KNOW a man named Jesus existed?

How can I know that a man named Jesus existed when I have never meet or interacted with him in any way. He isn't from my own part of the world and lived over 2000 years ago according to stories written down by people who I don't know and also have never met or interacted with in any way. I believe that a man named Jesus existed.

dalaman:


How can I know that a man named Jesus existed when I have never meet or interacted with him in any way. He isn't from.my own part of the world and lived over 2000 years ago according to stories written down by people who I don't know and also have never meet or interacted with in any way. I believe that a man named Jesus existed.

So you stop at "you believe" . Why would you as an atheist BELIEVE a man named Jesus once existed when you had no proof shown you for you to confirm?

Remember you said in your own words

dalaman:


Yeah I believe there was a man behind the legend just as I also believe that there was a man behind the Mohammed legend

.


So can you tell me what made you then believe a man named Jesus who is behind what you term as a legend once existed?

Remember this is not an argument so try not to turn it into one. These are rather simple questions you should already have answers to especially since you said you believe a man named Jesus existed.

butterflylion:


So you stop at "you believe" . Why would you as an atheist BELIEVE a man named Jesus once existed when you had no proof shown you for you to confirm?

Remember you said in your own words
.


So can you tell me what made you then believe a man named Jesus who is behind what you term as a legend once existed?

Remember this is not an argument so try not to turn it into one. These are rather simple questions you should already have answers to especially since you said you believe a man named Jesus existed.

I've stated it already. I just believe that the various Jesus stories weren't invented out of thin air. I believe that there was a man behind the stories.

dalaman:


I've stated it already. I just believe that the various Jesus stories weren't invented out of thin air. I believe that there was a man behind the stories.

So without any verifiable proof, you simply believed as an atheist that a man named Jesus once existed. Note I said verifiable proof.

Are these " stories" you said were invented verifiable to you?

Plus would you say ALL the stories about him were invented or some of them? If you say some of them, which ones?

Please answer my questions calmly.

dalaman:


Yeah I believe there was a man behind the legend just as I also believe that there was a man behind the Mohammed legend.

the historical figure Muhammed exist. there is More than enough evidence that buttress the claim. the islamic version of his story might not be accurate though.

Jesus existence can be debated.

I think this question is irrelevant. you should rather challenge the doctrine of believer in regard to their faith on how it does not make sense to the society and why everybody should be Atheists. because of the goodies it has to offer.

butterflylion:


So without any verifiable proof, you simply believed as an atheist that a man named Jesus once existed. Note I said verifiable proof.

Are these " stories" you said were invented verifiable to you?

Plus would you say ALL the stories about him were invented or some of them? If you say some of them, which ones?

Please answer my questions calmly.

There is nothing tangible that I can use to verify or prove his existed. The only thing provided to show that he existed are stories and it is based on this stories or part of them that I beieve that he existed.

Most of the stories about him were invented, example his virgin birth, acts miraculous wonders like raising people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, events that happened when he was killed like the resurrection of dead people that walked round the city of Jerusalem when he was killed, his resurrection and post resurrection appareances.

Again what I believe is that there was a man that lived and tried to create his own religious movement by claiming that he was the son of God. That angered the religious establishment and they killed him after he died his followers formulated stories about him and elevated his status to God saying that he was alive and was coming soon to take them back to heaven with him.

vaxx:
the historical figure Muhammed exist. there is More than enough evidence that buttress the claim. the islamic version of his story might not be accurate though.

Jesus existence can be debated.

I think this question is irrelevant. you should rather challenge the doctrine of believer in regard to their faith on how it does not make sense to the society and why everybody should be Atheists. because of the goodies it has to offer.

I am not for universal atheism. I don't want everybody to be an atheist. You are NOT the one to tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

dalaman:


There is nothing tangible that I can use to verify or prove his existed. The only thing provided to show that he existed are stories and it is based on this stories or part of them that I beieve that he existed.

Most of the stories about him were invented, example his virgin birth, acts miraculous wonders like raising people from the dead, walking on water, turning water into wine, events that happened when he was killed like the resurrection of dead people that walked round the city of Jerusalem when he was killed, his resurrection and post resurrection appareances.

Again what I believe is that there was a man that lived and tried to create his own religious movement by claiming that he was the son of God. That angered the religious establishment and they killed him after he died his followers formulated stories about him and elevated his status to God saying that he was alive and was coming soon to take them back to heaven with him.

In short you reject the miraculous accounts but accept everything else.

Since you said the below

There is nothing tangible that I can use to verify or prove his existed. The only thing provided to show that he existed are stories and it is based on this stories or part of them that I beieve that he existed

This means you have no verifiable proof that Jesus existed but simply believed based on what you read or were told.

believe
verb
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

So to you the existence of Jesus IS TRUE!

How then would you categorically claim the miraculous aspects in the said stories were invented and not all the stories Afterall the miraculous aspects are also part of the stories.

Also you said the below

Again what I believe is that there was a man that lived and tried to create his own religious movement by claiming that he was the son of God. That angered the religious establishment and they killed him after he died his followers formulated stories about him and elevated his status to God saying that he was alive and was coming soon to take them back to heaven with him.

If Jesus wanted to create his own religious movement would he not have been the one to write about his miraculous stories by himself and not third party witnesses? Would he not have been the one to write about his death and resurrection even when it never happened and not third party witnesses?

If the third party witnesses were the ones who documented events why then would you say Jesus wanted to create his own religious movement? To whose gain?

So based on your comment as well you BELIEVE he did die in the manner he did. Why?

dalaman:


I am not for universal atheism. I don't want everybody to be an atheist. You are NOT the one to tell me what I should or shouldn't do.

it my opinion bro . am sorry if you find it insulting.

butterflylion:


In short you reject the miraculous accounts but accept everything else.

Since you said the below

I don't accept everything else. I just accept a very little part of the story which I have stated. Which is that there was a man that was trying to create his own movement which angered the religious establishment and they had him killed.

This means you have no verifiable proof that Jesus existed but simply believed based on what you read or were told.

believe
verb
accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.

So to you the existence of Jesus IS TRUE!

How then would you categorically claim the miraculous aspects in the said stories were invented and not all the stories Afterall the miraculous aspects are also part of the stories.

No I don't accept the existence of Jesus as true because believe according to the dictionary also has a second meaning which is

2 Believe: hold (something) as an opinion; think.

This is the believe I have about Jesus. I don't accept his existence as true I only hold it as an opinion. The miraculous aspect are obviously fictional because they are simply untrue. They describe events that are humanly impossible. Example Virgins can not humanly give birth. A human being can not be brought back to to life after dying and being buried for 3 days, no human being can walk on water unaided or restore the amputated body parts of another immediately at will without any medical procedure. But that isn't just it, Jesus promised those that believe in him the ability to do greater things that what was written about him if only they believe in him. Non of his followers can do any of the things he was written to have done. Meaning it is simply not true.

Also you said the below

If Jesus wanted to create his own religious movement would he not have been the one to write about his miraculous stories by himself and not third party witnesses? Would he not have been the one to write about his death and resurrection even when it never happened and not third party witnesses?

If the third party witnesses were the ones who documented events why then would you say Jesus wanted to create his own religious movement? To whose gain?

So based on your comment as well you BELIEVE he did die in the manner he did. Why?

No, people will believe more if others wrote about it and claim they witnessed the events. People believe more when stories are written about others compared to when they write the stories themselves. I'll believe a narrative more where witness relate it and say there were with you over the one you alone will tell me especially when it has some fantastic reporting to it.

As I said earlier it was his followers that raised his status and started writing the stories many years after he died because it was his followers that wanted to continue the religious movement after he died by inventing fantastic stories about him and telling it to others.

I don't really believe he died according to the manner in which the stories written about him stated. But I believe that he was killed. Was he crucified or stoned to death? that I can not really say but I believe he was killed and the movement he started was continued and spread around by his followers with great vigor after he died.

dalaman:


I don't accept everything else. I just accept a very little part of the story which I have stated. Which is that there was a man that was trying to create his own movement which angered the religious establishment and they had him killed.




No I don't accept the existence of Jesus as true because believe according to the dictionary also has a second meaning which is

2 Believe: hold (something) as an opinion; think.

This is the believe I have about Jesus. I don't accept his existence as true I only hold it as an opinion. The miraculousaspect are obviously fictional because they are simply untrue. Virgins can not humanly give birth. A human being can not be brought back to to life after dying and being buried for 3 days, no human being can walk on water unaided or restore the amputated body parts of another immediately at will without any medical procedure. But that isn't just it, Jesus promised those that believe in him the ability to do greater things that what was written about him. Non of his followers can do any of the things he was written to have done. Meaning it is simplynot true.





No, people will believe more if others wrote about it and claim they witnessed the events. People believe more when stories are written about others compared to when they write the stories themselves. I'll believe a narrative more where witness relate it and say there were with you over the one you alone will tell me especially when it has some fantastic reporting to it.

As I said earlier it was his followers that raised his status and started writing the stories many years after he died because it was his followers that wanted to continue the religious movement after he died by inventing fantastic stories about him and telling it to others.

I don't really believe he died according to the manner in which the stories written about him stated. But I believe that he was killed. Was he crucified or stoned to death? that I can not really say but I believe he was killed and the movement he started was continued and speared around by his followers with great vigor after he died.

I don't understand! How can you accept ANY PART of a story you have no way of verifying? Even if you accept a very little part according to you and that little part is that there was a man that was trying to create his own movement which angered the religious establishment and they had him killed.

^^^^^
||||||||

That isn't in any way a little part. It's a huge part of the story. You believe Jesus lived and you believe he died or was killed but either way HE DIED! Then you begin telling your own stories which you have no proof about that he did not die in the manner described and never rose again after 3 days.

Your account is as unverifiable as the one you reject so why would you then CHOOSE to believe your own account and not the other one you reject?

If you say those events are not naturally possible this then takes us back to your stand as an atheist who seeks verifiable evidence for events but you have no problem believing Jesus simply existed as long as none of the miraculous events are included.

Also if you say his followers wrote about Jesus in such a fantastic manner would you also say those followers wrote about themselves in the same fantastic manner and eye witness accounts of their own lives even after Jesus was long gone was also part of the advancement of your "Jesus fraud claim"?

Would you also say that documented third party accounts of how these followers died while declaring the gospel was also part of the propaganda?

Here is your comment below

I don't really believe he died according to the manner in which the stories written about him stated. But I believe that he was killed. Was he crucified or stoned to death? that I can not really say but I believe he was killed and the movement he started was continued and speared around by his followers with great vigor after he died

You are saying two different things there and cancelling out your comments by yourself.

First you say YOU DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STORIES DEPICTED BUT BELIEVE HE WAS KILLED. (statement one)

(Now statement two)

YOU SAID WAS HE CRUCIFIED OR STONED TO DEATH YOU CANNOT REALLY SAY.

BUT STATEMENT ONE ALREADY SAID YOU DO NOT BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER DEPICTED WHILE STATEMENT 2 SAYS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE WHEN YOU SAID YOU CANNOT SAY FOR SURE HOW HE DIED AFTER SAYING YOU BELIEVE HE DID NOT DIE AS DEPICTED.

Kindly clarify.

dalaman:


I stated what was fictional. Virgin birth etc.

You surely love one thing most in your dear life and that's definitely derailing, you've actually tried derailing this thread okay continue

butterflylion:


I don't understand! How can you accept ANY PART of a story you have no way of verifying? Even if you accept a very little part according to you and that little part is that there was a man that was trying to create his own movement which angered the religious establishment and they had him killed.

^^^^^
||||||||

As I said earlier, I believe the stories were formulated after a person that existed by his followed who wanted to continue his movement. I just try to filter through it and accept what is humanly possible and discard what isn't.

That isn't in any way a little part. It's a huge part of the story. You believe Jesus lived and you believe he died or was killed but either way HE DIED! Then you begin telling your own stories which you have no proof about that he did not die in the manner described and never rose again after 3 days.

Your account is as unverifiable as the one you reject so why would you then CHOOSE to believe your own account and not the other one you reject?

I just try to filter through it and accept what is humanly possible and discard what isn't. My own account is very humanly possible. The account I reject is simply untrue because it has fictional events and narratives that are just humanly impossible and can never happen in reality. If those stories are true then we will be able to see evidence for them and I stated that Jesus promised those people that believe in him the ability to do greater things than him but those that believe in him can't do any of the fantastic and incredible things written about him because it is simply untrue. It is on this basis that I chose to accept my own version and reject the other version.

If you say those events are not naturally possible this then takes us back to your stand as an atheist who seeks verifiable evidence for events but you have no problem believing Jesus simply existed as long as none of the miraculous events are included.

It has nothing to do with my stand as an atheist. Those narratives are simply fictional because they are untrue. They are just legendary and mythological. I try to form my opinion on what is humanly possible and what is not based on the report. The miraculous parts are fictional.

Also if you say his followers wrote about Jesus in such a fantastic manner would you also say those followers wrote about themselves in the same fantastic manner and eye witness accounts of their own lives even after Jesus was long gone was also part of the advancement of your "Jesus fraud claim"?

Nobody knows who wrote any of the Jesus stories? The stories were written ananonymously, not by people who witnessed the events or people who knew Jesus or ever met him but by people who lived very long after he died. People later(early church fathers ) on had to assign authorship to the books to give them legitimacy and chose the ones people were to accept as the true ones(Gospels) out of the many others that were in circulation. As for the followers what ever that was written about them is just part of the propaganda since it was written by people that wanted to promote the religiousmovement.

Would you also say that documented third party accounts of how these followers died while declaring the gospel was also part of the propaganda?

Yes. Completely.

Here is your comment below



You are saying two different things there and cancelling out your comments by yourself.

First you say YOU DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STORIES DEPICTED BUT BELIEVE HE WAS KILLED. (statement one)

(Now statement two)

YOU SAID WAS HE CRUCIFIED OR STONED TO DEATH YOU CANNOT REALLY SAY.

BUT STATEMENT ONE ALREADY SAID YOU DO NOT BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER DEPICTED WHILE STATEMENT 2 SAYS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE WHEN YOU SAID YOU CANNOT SAY FOR SURE HOW HE DIED AFTER SAYING YOU BELIEVE HE DID NOT DIE AS DEPICTED.

Kindly clarify.

Whether he was crucified or not is not a problem to me. All I believe is that he was executed in one way or the other. I am also willing to accept that he was crucified but how it was portrayed in the stories is what I do not believe.

butterflylion:


So without any verifiable proof, you simply believed as an atheist that a man named Jesus once existed. Note I said verifiable proof.

Are these " stories" you said were invented verifiable to you?

Plus would you say ALL the stories about him were invented or some of them? If you say some of them, which ones?

Please answer my questions calmly.

The man has dodged these question so many times.
He once told us the romans invented the bible out of desperation.

The guy is out of touch. He feels he is qualified to argue simply because he sees other atheists arguing.
You even see him dabbling with science when it's obvious he has no business there.


By the time he gets trapped and cant bail himself out he resorts to insults and repeating your statements.

butterflylion:


So without any verifiable proof, you simply believed as an atheist that a man named Jesus once existed. Note I said verifiable proof.

Are these " stories" you said were invented verifiable to you?

Plus would you say ALL the stories about him were invented or some of them? If you say some of them, which ones?

Please answer my questions calmly.

The man has dodged these question so many times.
He once told us the romans invented the bible out of desperation.

The guy is out of touch. He feels he is qualified to argue simply because he sees other atheists arguing.
You even see him dabbling with science when it's obvious he has no business there.


By the time he gets trapped and cant bail himself out he resorts to insults and repeating your statements.
Sometimes i pity him, honestly.

butterflylion:


So without any verifiable proof, you simply believed as an atheist that a man named Jesus once existed. Note I said verifiable proof.

Are these " stories" you said were invented verifiable to you?

Plus would you say ALL the stories about him were invented or some of them? If you say some of them, which ones?

Please answer my questions calmly.

Watch him change the argument, just watch

butterflylion:


I don't understand! How can you accept ANY PART of a story you have no way of verifying? Even if you accept a very little part according to you and that little part is that there was a man that was trying to create his own movement which angered the religious establishment and they had him killed.

^^^^^
||||||||

That isn't in any way a little part. It's a huge part of the story. You believe Jesus lived and you believe he died or was killed but either way HE DIED! Then you begin telling your own stories which you have no proof about that he did not die in the manner described and never rose again after 3 days.

Your account is as unverifiable as the one you reject so why would you then CHOOSE to believe your own account and not the other one you reject?

If you say those events are not naturally possible this then takes us back to your stand as an atheist who seeks verifiable evidence for events but you have no problem believing Jesus simply existed as long as none of the miraculous events are included.

Also if you say his followers wrote about Jesus in such a fantastic manner would you also say those followers wrote about themselves in the same fantastic manner and eye witness accounts of their own lives even after Jesus was long gone was also part of the advancement of your "Jesus fraud claim"?

Would you also say that documented third party accounts of how these followers died while declaring the gospel was also part of the propaganda?

Here is your comment below



You are saying two different things there and cancelling out your comments by yourself.

First you say YOU DO NOT REALLY BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE STORIES DEPICTED BUT BELIEVE HE WAS KILLED. (statement one)

(Now statement two)

YOU SAID WAS HE CRUCIFIED OR STONED TO DEATH YOU CANNOT REALLY SAY.

BUT STATEMENT ONE ALREADY SAID YOU DO NOT BELIEVE HE DIED IN THE MANNER DEPICTED WHILE STATEMENT 2 SAYS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE WHEN YOU SAID YOU CANNOT SAY FOR SURE HOW HE DIED AFTER SAYING YOU BELIEVE HE DID NOT DIE AS DEPICTED.

Kindly clarify.

dalaman is in some sort of problem this morning

felixomor:


The man has dodged these question so many times.
He once told us the romans invented the bible out of desperation.

The guy is out of touch. He feels he is qualified to argue simply because he sees other atheists arguing.
You even see him dabbling with science when it's obvious he has no business there.


By the time he gets trapped and cant bail himself out he resorts to insults and repeating your statements.

Quote where I said the Romans invented the bible you shameless liar. Just quote it and show that you can speak the truth for ones. Mr Felixmoron the lie lie master. Don't come and play the stupid usual games of yours by trying to change it into another talk. Just show quote where I said Romans invented the bible. Mr lie lie.

I find it funny that Mr sleeping brain is talking about science. Felixmumu.

dalaman:


As I said earlier, I believe the stories were formulated after a person that existed by his followed who wanted to continue his movement. I just try to filter through it and accept what is humanly possible and discard what isn't.

You believe that the story was formulated yet you accepted some part of it as true based on what dalaman?

dalaman:



I just try to filter through it and accept what is humanly possible and discard what isn't. My own account is very humanly possible. The account I reject is simply untrue because it has fictional events and narratives that are just humanly impossible and can never happen in reality. If those stories are true then we will be able to see evidence for them and I stated that Jesus promised those people that believe in him the ability to do greater things than him but those that believe in him can't do any of the fantastic and incredible things written about him because it is simply untrue. It is on this basis that I chose to accept my own version and reject the other version.

Your version now is the authorised version of the event that happened thousands of years ago right? Yet you failed to give me an accurate account of the events that happened to your family line just about hundred years? Now tell me why anyone should take you serious?

dalaman:




It has nothing to do with my stand as an atheist. Those narratives are simply fictional because they are untrue. They are just legendary and mythological. I try to form my opinion on what is humanly possible and what is not based on the report. The miraculous parts are fictional.

Lengedary and mythological yet you foolishly believe part of it? The atheist community will be very proud of you right now

dalaman:



Nobody knows who wrote any of the Jesus stories? The stories were written ananonymously, not by people who witnessed the events or people who knew Jesus or ever met him but by people who lived very long after he died. People later(early church fathers ) on had to assign authorship to the books to give them legitimacy and chose the ones people were to accept as the true ones(Gospels) out of the many others that were in circulation. As for the followers what ever that was written about them is just part of the propaganda since it was written by people that wanted to promote the religiousmovement.

Suddenly you accepted something that nobody could tell you it was written by anybody. An authorless story appeal to you because you can not disprove it all together therefore you feel all you should do is to accept some part and reject some part so as not to be accused whenever you are cornered? Even Darwkin accepted an apologized on live TV. As for you on this faceless forum you arrogance won't even let you accept not to mention apology keep it up dalaman

dalaman:



Whether he was crucified or not is not a problem to me. All I believe is that he was executed in one way or the other. I am also willing to accept that he was crucified but how it was portrayed in the stories is what I do not believe.

This is the greatest problem you have ever had, you battle with it day and night as this is the major part of the said formulated story that you are still trying and working hard to reject, how can you then tell me it is not your problem when you droll over every Christian post on nairaland to disprove the same story? [/quote]

rhektor:


You believe that the story was formulated yet you accepted some part of it as true based on what dalaman?

Yes the stories were formulated. Read what am saying and stop asking me the same question over and over. I believe that there was a man behind the lengend. All I believea about the story I've stated, which is a man wanted to start his own movement and angered the establishment and they had him killed after which his followers continued his movement after he died by inventing stories about him and spreading them and gaining new members.

Your version now is the authorised version of the event that happened thousands of years ago right? Yet you failed to give me an accurate account of the events that happened to your family line just about hundred years? Now tell me why anyone should take you serious?

I am only stating why I reject the stories of Jesus as presented. These stories have no evidence at all to back them. Let me ask you my own question. Answer it and don't run away from it.

Historians did not mention the stories of Jesus as told by his followers any where in history and there is no archeological/physical evidence to show that these events happend. By evidence I mean, there is no cross, no body knows where the tomb of Jesus is(the two different tombs we have in Israel are just symbolic), no bust of Jesus exist any where, nothing tangible exist at all about him that will count as evidence only stories that are mostly contradictory. Example there is no evidence at all to show that Jesus raised anybody from the dead . We only have written stories from unknown sources. How then do you know that it is true?

Lengedary and mythological yet you foolishly believe part of it? The atheist community will be very proud of you right now

I've told you what I believe. Do you have any evidence to show that the stories are factual and not legendary/ mythical?

Suddenly you accepted something that nobody could tell you it was written by anybody. An authorless story appeal to you because you can not disprove it all together therefore you feel all you should do is to accept some part and reject some part so as not to be accused whenever you are cornered? Even Darwkin accepted an apologized on live TV. As for you on this faceless forum you arrogance won't even let you accept not to mention apology keep it up dalaman

Why the emotional melt down na. What is it? It's true nobody knows who wrote any of the gospels. Church tradition assigned authorship to them.

Take away the tittle assigned to the book of Matthew by the church fathers. How you you know that Matthew wrote the book of Mathew from reading the book? Did any Mathew claim authorship in any part of the book?

What exactly did Dawkins apologize for?

This is the greatest problem you have ever had, you battle with it day and night as this is the major part of the said formulated story that you are still trying and working hard to reject, how can you then tell me it is not your problem when you droll over every Christian post on nairaland to disprove the same story?

Stop this emotional melt down. It won't help you when discussing with me. I reject the major parts because they are fictional and simply untrue. If the major parts are true you should be able to demonstrates it your self. You believe in Jesus don't you? According to the stories he promised YOU the ability to do greater things than him. If it is true you should be able to do that. But you can't do any of the things written about him despite your great belief because it is simply untrue. The major part of the story reports things that are impossible and only happen in fictional and superstitious narratives and not in reality.

LekkyD007:



My very good sir I can see you're a newly recruited, you're still transitioning, I understand the vibe, the heavy blood flow that runs through your veins when you hear religious talks, believe me I've been there

LekkyD007:
Dalaman, I've only been an atheist for less than 4 years and I've learned to control myself and be calm even at the highest level of instigation, I'm still young at this and I know when to stop talking but you've been one for years and you still engage in the same kind of arguments EVERYDAY.

isn't there a contradiction here? maybe I'm not reading properly?

dalaman:


[s]Quote where I said the Romans invented the bible you shameless liar. Just quote it and show that you can speak the truth for ones. Mr Felixmoron the lie lie master. Don't come and play the stupid usual games of yours by trying to change it into another talk. Just show quote where I said Romans invented the bible. Mr lie lie.

I find it funny that Mr sleeping brain is talking about science. Felixmumu. [/s]

SHUT up there and receive sense.