blueAgent:





Like i said Hawkins and most scientists do not believe in a random or chaos beginging of the World.
Secondly Aberlt Enisten was not an Athiests.

Everyone who is seriously involved in the
pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the
Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which
we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people
who say there is no God. But what really omakes
me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”
–Albert Einstein
Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and
Times . New York: World Publishing company

You don't even read my post but you jump to conclusions.

I know Einstein is not an atheist that's why I said that he is a pantheist. Please read my post again and see.

If you like quote Einstein tire. Since you want to quote him why don't you also quote the statements Einstein made against a personal creator like Yahweh.

Since you want to bank on his statements. Why don't you go all the way ?

jonbellion:
what you said had nothing to do with his comment
He said he is agnostic
Don't you know the meaning of agnostic

Don't mind these Christians.

They think that by collectively repeating to themselves that atheists are dumb that they will convince them selves of it.

Any honest Christian can tell you that agnostics and atheists are generally better read and more exposed on average than Christians. We might be few but most Christians know that agnostics and atheists generally have more knowledge than them. Many even claim that we reject god because we think we know too much.

Now these wankers on this thread are trying so hard to rewrite facts and claim that the opposite is the case.

blueAgent:



Even your Dawkins believes that the world did not originate by chance.

www.nairaland.com/3300679/science-view-fine-turning-universe

Guy I just read this post and I almost fainted.

C'mon even your other apologists won't use this argument.

Is there any body that doesn't know that Richard Dawkins is an avowed atheist who totally despises the Christian concept of god.
So if I am to show you a link that says that Hitler was in love with the Jews won't you know that the statement was taken out of context?

I don't need to open that link cause I know Dawkins more than you do and I am 100 percent sure that the only fine tuning Dawkins is talking of is the fine tuning as a result of natural selection and evolution.

You even have the guts to present this as evidence

blueAgent:



II guess you know better than

—Werner von Braun, the father of space
science and the most important rocket
scientist involved in the development of the
U.S. space program.

And am sure you and Werner von Braun know more than Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein who are atheist and pantheist respectively.

If you can't summarize his views and give your opinion of his views then what's the use? I can also be calling great scientists that don't believe but I won't because i am not running under the canopy of another persons intellect.

bennyann:







I see it's more about pleasure, selfish pleasure. Most of the atheists know the truth but they allow their selfish desires dictate for them, especially the Christians turned atheists.

Anyway, they're witnesses to themselves of how fulfilled they are with acting out their desires and how empty or unhappy they are on their beds afterwards.

They are witnesses to themselves. they may defend themselves right here with every weapon they can find, but deep down their hearts they know.

The amazing thing is that nothing is hidden before God.

What's the essence of selfish desires at the expense of true happiness. Indeed, wisdom is not really common.

We've all forgotten everything God does is for our sake.

As long as you're not connected to God, all the form of pleasures of this world you partake in will never, never lead to happiness, not to talk of joy.

I wish all of us grace.

All your claims are claims from authority that you don't have. Let me address them one by one

1. Concerning pleasures, who is more selfish. You Christians maintain belief for the sake of a mansion in the sky with all the goodies4 of life to be enjoyed forever and ever and ever. You guys are basically drawn with a carrot for something that doesn't exist. You are like the medieval Spanish that were after an Eldorado in the new world. Many Spaniards sold all their property to achieve that Eldorado. Nothing but pure greed.
What's even worse is that the Christians that are meant to sacrifice selfish pleasures never do that. They hang on to it till death, its like eating your cake and having it. Most Christians fornicate, steal, embezzlement, hate and do all sorts of horrible things and they still hope for the eternal blessing of heaven.
Now who has more selfish desires, the atheists that have accepted the 80 year life as the only they have and are not drawn by any fantastic claims or the Christians who want an eternity of enjoyment and still want to hang on to their earthly desires.

2. You don't know what's in anyone's heart. Can you tell me my real name or my state of origin? Can you tell me whre I am typing from? How can you now know what's in my heart. You have never been a freethinker while ironically most of us have been religious. You know only what's in your mind . If you have a spouse, you can't even know exactly the extent of love the person has for you so how can you estimate what we are thinking when we lie down when you don't even know the part of the world or country that we lie down in.

3. If you say nothing is hidden before God. I have just one question. Which God ? Allah, Vishnu, Brahman, Yahweh, Ahura Mazda. Please I need to know which god.

4. All your other statements still lead to the question. Which God.

blueAgent:



“They (evolutionists) challenge science to
prove the existence of God. But must we really
light a candle to see the sun? They say they
cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a
physicist visualize an electron? What strange
rationale makes some physicists accept the
inconceivable electron as real while refusing
to accept the reality of a Designer on the
grounds that they cannot conceive Him?”
Although I know of no reference to Christ
ever commenting on scientific work, I do know
that He said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make you free.” Thus I am certain
that, were He among us today, Christ would
encourage scientific research as modern man’s
most noble striving to comprehend and admire His Father’s handiwork. The universe as
revealed through scientific inquiry is the living
witness that God has indeed been at work.”
—Werner von Braun, the father of space science and the most important rocket scientist involved in the development of the U.S. space program.

In case you don't know, the electron can be seen with the human eye with the aid of electron microscope. That analogy is useless.

And even if we can't see an electron, can we also see love? Can we see hate? Can we see the wind or electricity? The answer is No
But we can surely feel their effects

Am not against the belief in a god. I am an agnostic so I accept the possibility of intelligent beings existing before mankind or even planet earth.
The only thing I am against is the religious personal creator that you religious people have created.


I will ask you the same things that I asked one other christian. Please what is the proof that all the wonderful things we talk about was created by Yahweh the Jewish god whom Christians claim to serve alongside his son Jesus Christ?

blueAgent:






“If we need an atheist for a debate, we go to
the philosophy department. The physics
department isn’t much use.”
—Robert Griffiths, winner of the Heinemann
Prize in mathematical physics.

Think for yourself and stop posting others comments.

I can as well be posting Richard Dawkins and Stephen hawking. Why use will that be? I have my own points and thoughts and I will be bring them out.

blueAgent:



Stop decieving yourself Science is not a yardstick to searchout God's existences

“Science is incompetent to reason upon the
creation of matter itself out of
nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.”— Physicist and mathematician James
Clerk Maxwell, who is credited with formulating classical electromagnetic theory and whose contributions to science are considered to be of the same magnitude to those of Einstein and
Newton.

Stop quoting people. Don't you have thoughts yourself?

Please what is the yardstick to search out Gods existence?

If we have reached the end of our thinking4 faculties, how did you surpass that end? Is it by having faith or what
Are you not seeing that you are saying the same thing over and over again? If we have reached the end then why do you claim that you have crossed it?

MrMontella:

@ d bolded...
Its their ego thats in play....not their brains

Don't mind the scumbags

Let me face their useless posts now

promisechuks:


Another foolish deception is this nonsense logic of God of gap, this and that.

what I saying here is not for you, the quoted, because it is a waste on you.

There are things that are OBVIOUSLY not explainable by sciences. in this case, saying that science will discover one day is a just a wishful thinking borne out of a weird delusion, ignorance, dishonesty, stupidity and denial.

for the unknown to have a tendency of being discovered by science, it must have a scientific basis. it just like saying that science will discover what happened before big bang. that's simply dumb, because the natural laws(science) that we have now is not the same with what we have before big bang. it is opposite.

There is no way you can discover something with an opposing view, other wise you are just creating A NEW LIE that will be debunked one day.

so, when something is obvious that it doesn't work under the natural laws we have now in the world, it means for that to have happened, there must have been an outside force. and that force must not be a natural force, but Supernatural.

With all your points about some things not being discovered by science, doesn't it debunk your case.

Science with all its experiments and technology doesn't know what happened before the big bang but you think its religion with its dogma and archaic holy books that can discover.

In case you don't understand what god of the gaps is,

Let me explain it
Wonderful things in nature happen and you call them supernatural, historical things that can't be rediscovered have occured and we know science can't decipher them with its tools. We now have a void of knowledge that science hasn't filled because its logical and it's beyond its grasp,

Now the same people who claim science can't know now claim that they know.
Not just that they know buy that they know the name of the person that did it.
They know his son, they know his chosen tribe, they know the miracles he has performed, they know his will for their lives and all that. Now how do these people know?

They know by a logical, ancient book written in human language and logical constructs, the same logic that science can't use to decipher anything the only difference is that their logic is actually weaker.
They also claim they know by spiritual revelation, how do they know that the revelation is spiritual? They have a conviction.

They use the strength of their so called spiritual conviction to claim that they know and it's beyond science.

They don't know that they are unknowingly using science and logic, if you feel you have an experience that is so wonderful and supernatural and because of that experience you are sure that the spiritual is real, you are actually using logic because you are claiming that the conviction and experience with a greater effect on you is the real one which is basically logical comparison.

Christians and other religious people, if you claim that science can't know every thing, that's fine with us cause personally I don't believe science can know every thing, the only thing we ask is , how do you Christian know everything? Science doesn't know but you know. Is that not arrogance?

Can you christians speak without embarrassing yourself.

Conservapedia of all sources.

A politically conservative, religiously biased site posts something negative about atheists and you guys rush to post it as news.

SMH

You just have to give we freethinkers some credit.

We generally have more honor than the religious.
Hardmirror lied about one detail and we had to call him out and even denied him

jonbellion:
dont even bother with this
The christian crew would have seen something like this coming and made adequate preparations after the fall of HardMirror
Ned stark always said winter was coming
They are fully prepared

If you are waiting for the Christians to do that to one of their lying flock then think again.

jonbellion:
yeah yeah I know he's god in the flesh blah blah blah
Sooooooo in the garden of gethsamene..... He was praying to himself to save himself
And when he died he was asking himself why he forsook himself
And he artificially inseminated a woman himself to give birth to himself
And said to his parents that he was in his own house when they came to look for him in the synagogue
Aaand he sent a dove upon himself from heaven where he also resides
Aaand he's sitting on the right hand seat of himself
Brooooooooooo
Jesus was the ultimate stoner
That LSD in ancient Palestine must have been pretty good
I would adress you seriously later today

That was a priceless knock out punch coupled with a scissors kick and a choke slam.

Mr.Bellion where do you gets the words that are coming out of yo mouth?

I will save this post but come to think of it, no need to argue with them about trinity. The whole shit is made up so why bother about showing them that trinity is wrong.

honourhim:


. Oga being a clergy does not translate to going deep in christianity. Do U even understand what christianity means?

I don't have strength for argument.

An sure in your world, any christian that falls away was never a Christian at all. So even if I show you pastors that left the faith you will tell me they were never Christians, if I talk about myself you will say the same thing. No proof is enough for you guys that's why I don't bother arguing. If I refer you to Charles Templeton you will tell me that he was never a christian.

Since you asked whether I know what it means to be a Christian. I will try and answer, the things I state are things i experienced so you can make your judgement yourself

1. Coming to the knowledge that you are a sinner before God and feeling the holy spirits conviction towards that .

2. Accepting that the only way you can be saved is through accepting the sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ. Accepting and believing in your heart that Jesus is Lord. Making the confession and praying for God's acceptance.

3. Beginning your Christian walk by feeding on the word of God. Asking the holy spirit for guidance and revelation as you read the word.

4. Receiving the baptism of the holy spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues and also receiving one of the gifts of the spirit. Communing with the spirit

5. Fellowship with the Christian brethren. Involving Sunday services and as many days as possible in the week.

6. Sharing the good news of Christ to unbelievers.

7. Study of the word and other christian materials to grow in the faith

8. Having faith in Gods promises for your life and waiting for their manifestations.

9. Encouraging other believers in the faith.

10. Giving to the kingdom through tithes,seed and offering.

11. Offering yourself to God's service either in the church or elsewhere. Being a minister to the body of christ.


All these and many more make up the Christian faith. One that has been part of this faith and has partaken in every of the aforementioned things can leave the faith if he discovers the truth about his religion can leave the faith.
I know you find it hard to believe but one can say goodbye to Christianity after experiencing all these things. I experienced them and I said goodbye because Christianity is a man made religion.

honourhim:



Ahaa...that's how you people make your false claim about going deep in christianity. Abeg make we hear word.
Meanwhile i am not threatening you with hell rather i am telling you the truth.

That's why there is no need to argue with you cause you won't believe me.

And if you are doubtful of the fact that so many serious Christians have left the faith then look at this link that shows you ex pastors leaving your precious faith
http://clergyproject.org

As for your claim that you won't threatening me but just telling me the truth, am sure you didn't bother to read the link I gave you that shows a place that you are at risk of going to since you are shunning one deity.

honourhim:


There are people who had similar believe like yours and spoke similar words like yours but when they encountered the power of God they rejected the way you are following and embraced the way of God. Some of them are nairalanders and a lot are out there too who are not nairalanders. I pray you amend your ways before it is too late.

I don't have time to argue about your claims. Just know one thing, nobody that has been through Christianity the way I went through it and also opened his/her mind to the truth of other ideas will by no means choose to remain a Christian.

As for your threat or warning, am sure it's about hell or death. Well you won't live forever, you will also die one day and then you will know whether you have believed the truth.
Please work hard to avoid this place.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka

The Christians are saying that the devil is fighting peoples minds but trenchant see that the only devil fighting the gospel is the devil of truth.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Christianity is like a vampire that can't stand the sunlight , once it is illuminated it starts to wither and fall by itself.

The light of reason is beginning to shine on it, due to the availability of information in the internet and the globalization going on that makes ideas to be shared easily, the light of truth is beginning to tear Christianity into shreds.

One of the posters said the devil is attacking peoples minds, the Christians don't know that their position on existence and life generally is more negative, horrific and evil than any devil can bring. In reality, speaking metaphorically, I can say that god is fighting and destroying the devil of religion that has held man captive. The god of truth and reason is freeing people from the mental cage of religion.

Bluezy13:


Thanks a lot for your time.
To your answers;
(1) I would like to correct an impression; You cannot be an agnostic and an atheist at the same time. Agnosticism is rooted in uncertainty...that is when the belief on a supreme being or deity is uncertain or doubtful. While Atheism is rooted in certainty that there is no supreme being which is particularly God.
You cannot be uncertain and certain at the same thing.

(2) And in that village Every One believes that when a woman is on her period, if you touch her you will die. In this situation, we all know that such a belief is wrong, if we go against the norm of such a belief, we eventually find ourselves being persecuted,
The death here is it as result of touching the woman or persecution (like death penalty) ??
If the former, then it means one or two persons must have died after touching such a woman for there to be such a belief. If the later, then it is folly.

(3) You term it folly because you happen to have a different view either because you are not from that village or because you are opportuned to just to witness someone touch and did not die directly as a result of touching and not due to persecution or simply because you happen to be stubborn to that belief.
If it is because you are not from the village, then you have no right to term such a belief as folly.

(4) The overlisted beliefs are facts...natural truths...we all have no choice but to believe they happen. it is different from the belief regarding existentialism, supremacy and deity.

Conclusively, you didn't contribute in the regard of Atheism, theism etc nor in light of my questions.

1. For your first point. There is such a thing as agnostic atheism. You can Google it. Atheism in the sense of not believing in any religious gods but agnosticism in the sense of leaving the possibility of a deistic god open. Please read more on it. There are strong atheists who dismiss every claims of a god both the existing and the future claims of god. Those are your full atheists.

2. In many societies, uncleanliness is attached to some things. It might not be a woman, it might be a taboo to touch a tree, or to cross over someone. In these cases, there is no evidential reason to believe but fear rules and people don't want to take the risk. Are you not aware of such beliefs in Africa. I know of many and they are all wrong but no one has the confidence to go against societal norms.

3. I don't understand why I won't term it as folly. That means as long as a claim is made then it must be accepted. So what is the use of scientific investigation?
So every claim in every village must be accepted. That means in some south African villages where a goat is sacrificed when a child is born, it means that in reality a goat's blood is necessary for the good health of a child.
How can you say that? That's like saying gravity works in some places and doesn't work and that's very similar to religious belief. There are universally tested scientific facts, if an objection or so called anomaly to those facts is cited then it must be investigated in order to modify the scientific theory.
Am sorry but all the superstitious rural taboos are not scientific facts but primitive superstitions that can't be confirmed and are blatantly false. That's what I am trying to say, that people can believe in things even when they are not true, the mechanism of belief can be engineered by so many other factors apart from rational thought and reason.

4. Am happy you accepted them as facts. There is no difference between them and existentialism beliefs save that the latter is bigger and of much more significance.
Religious beliefs have some core beliefs as foundations.
For Christianity they have ;
- creation of the world in 4004 bc in six days[ the evidence points to a much much older earth]

- Adam and eve in the garden of eden and a talking snake [ the garden is as mythical as Olympus and till now hasn't been found, snakes don't talk and we haven't observed any snakes doing that]

- virgin birth[ no proof]

- geocentric universe which has been modified to fit scientific theory

- original sin[ human nature proves that we have a natural tendency to be selfish and we will make mistakes along the way, the same behavior can be observed in animals showing there was never a perfect world]

- eternal reward and damnation[ still no proof]

All the above listed beliefs and their rebuttals show that it is perfectly natural and rational to refuse such beliefs. One must not refute them because he belongs to an atheist club but we refute them because they are clearly untrue for those who take out time to reason and observe them.

Christians I hope you understand what credibility means

Just a slight detail in Hardmirrors story and we all have to ask ourselves whether the whole story was fabricated. If he could fabricate or be dishonest about one slight detail then we can't know the extent of the fabrication or were the lies end. In this case it is best to dismiss his testimony.

Lets apply this same logic to your bible. The difference between hardmirror testimony and your bible is that your bible claims to be the inerrant, inspired word of god.
Now if we can find one dubious claim in your bible, applying the same logic, how can we not discard it as a whole.
There abounds dozens of inaccurate claims in your bible.
Just to name a few
1. Conflicting geneologies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke
2. Conflicting Creation accounts in genesis.
3. Failed end time prophecy given by Jesus in Matthew 24 concerning his imminent return which was scheduled before the end of the listening generation.
4. Failed prophecy on the destruction of Tyre.

5. Inaccurate knowledge of geography. Stating that the sun, moon and stars are all in the sky.

Christians examine your beliefs

damogul:
[/b]

Isnt the bolded what we just did that led us here? Learn to be objective and speak when its worth it.

What are you even saying?

What did you do here In this thread? You are trying to prove that hardmirror is a fake. Please will that answer all the questions of existence and put to bed all the objections of Christianity.

Hardmirror is a human being, I don't care about his motives neither do I care about his honesty or lack of it. I didn't come to my belief system because of the testimony of a man. Face the fact that the guys testimony shook the faith of so many Christians and you are trying so hard to undo that damage. He lied, so what? Will you keep on beating the horse of this guys lies or will you face why you believe what you believe.

How many times do you see freethinkers trying to hammer down the credibility of one so called man of god. We don't do that, because we know Christianity like other world religion's was built on fables, mythology and fear which are all dishonest foundations. That is what we attack, the dishonest foundations, whether Benny hinn is fraudulent or not, or whether pastor Chris is fraudulent or not, it doesn't change the fact that the underlying theology is faulty.

So I will say it again, hardmirror is a fraud and so what, he is a cheat, a pathological liar, an impostor and so what. Does that make the holy bible to be free of immorality and contradictions.

A little advice for you, if you claim to be a Christian don't be like the medieval crusaders who threw away all decency because they were allegedly fighting for the Lord, please still maintain decency and human respect even though you feel you are justified since you are fighting atheists. If someone didn't refer to you or pass a snide remark your way, please don't do such to the person. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. I didn't insult you, its not too much to ask that you do the same.

Mimzyy:
Are the atheists avoiding this thread? Does it mean that Hardmirror has accepted that some part of his story was fabricated? Is there any logical explanation at all? Phewwww.

Hardmirror has embarrassed freethinkers on NL.

But why are you Christians aching to see his story debunked? His is just a story, the real questions of Christianity would never be wished away even if a million hardmirrors surface and are embarrassed.

The real questions concerning salvation, hell, the problem of evil, failed prophecies, biblical contradictions etc.

Unlike you christians, we freethinkers don't put faith in man and his wiles but in universally tested methods of reason.

Bluezy13:
Maybe I should comment on this thread since the person in charge proves to be an advocate of sanity and rationale.


I was brought up in a Christian family, every member of my family is a "core" Christian, I found myself to be categorized under them (Christians) but as young (about 13-16) as I was, I never liked going to church, I didn't know why.

I'll even prefer playing football. sometimes, I'll happen to be in church only when dad must have threatened hell if I hadn't and even when I'll go, I'll go very late (not intentionally) but I would just find myself going late and would always sit behind even when pews are empty.
I didn't understand why I had no zeal to attend church although sometimes I'll really want to but it never just happened.

Through my friends, I happened to attend Anglican and Catholic but I didn't quite understand what they were doing... it was ritualistic or sort of.

Now it as an adult, my concern with church and Christianity as a whole is eroding gradually as I advance. Christianity stuff doesn't interests me any longer.

If I should manage to go to church, I would either be sleeping at intervals, browsing, playing games or reading one article or the other while the sermon is on.

The problem is not that of Proverb 23:6 or 22:6 or 6:23...whichever but it talks about bringing up a child in the way he should go etc. My parents did their best to raise me up in the Christian way as can be seen in the lives of my sisters but he didn't just work out.

I happen to be intelligent, I seldom lose an argument ( I know it is unethical), I possess other characteristics which is not why I'm here to tell, but I'm very humble, quiet or do I say an introvert who always look at things critically.

Now, my problem is not that I want to be an atheist (after all, I still pray to God), my problem is not that I don't wish to be God's instrument per say. My problem is not that I detests all church doctrines or Christianity teachings or biblical views of things.

My problem is that I have many questions...very many questions without answers that even the so called atheists have not been able to answer neither has high reputable men of God. And these questions had made Christianity to be something I "know not what". I don't understand it.

If atheists could answer my questions, I would be an atheist.

Meanwhile, a few questions for the atheists:
"If we don't believe in any religion, if we don't believe in God,
if we would account our existence to no one, if we believe in nothing, if we are free thinkers, Why do we have to come together in the name of "Atheists" and who are we coming together against?? Why do we come together as persons of common thought when we are supposedly called free thinkers??

Coming together against religion or God or whichever deity makes us an indirect faction who actually believes in something and that thing is undebutably called religion and that means that we are fighting religion with religion unconsciously and if this is the case, why then does the word atheism exists??"
Why? Why?? Why??"

The bottom line is that if everyone is a free thinker, then no two persons must think the same and hence no coming together under a particular name.


Please, I need answers...

I like your post.

Now concerning your question, I can answer it since I am an agnostic and a freethinker.

We atheists or agnostics didn't give our selves that name. You will hardly see any Christian that calls himself theist or a Christian that knows the meaning of the word theist. It is a philosophical description, and the same philosophers describe non believers in that same way.

Consider this scenario, if me and you happen to live in a village. And in that village Every One believes that when a woman is on her period, if you touch her you will die. In this situation, we all know that such a belief is wrong, if we go against the norm of such a belief, we eventually find ourselves being persecuted, what will be the smart thing to do? Won't it be smart for all the rational people to unite against folly.

Coming to your question, as a freethinker, whether you like it or not you are under the influence of a very religious world. The Abrahamic religions are not like the eastern religions. The Abrahamic religions are exclusive, totalitarian and power hungry. They have the ability to politically influence any environment they are accepted in.

We atheists do not have a religion and the only reason we seem to be together on NL is because we share the same intellectual view points. Is it a crime to share or see things the same way?
Religious people don't share intellectual view points but they share the same beliefs.

I don't know where you heard that atheists don't believe in anything. Atheists believe when they have proof if something, religious people choose to believe and their belief leads to them come under one lifestyle and authority.

If you claim we are one because we believe in something then consider the following beliefs and tell me whether the fact that we share them makes us under one umbrella

1. The belief that falling from over 200 feet is fatal
2. The belief that reckless driving kills
3. The belief that cancer is dangerous
4. The belief that the earth is round and that it revolves around the sun
5. The belief that humans don't live past 150 years
6. The belief that fire is harmful to human beings

Consider the beliefs above, do we need to be in a singular group because we believe those. Do we need to be in a cult to believe those? We arrive at those beliefs because we have intellectual capacity. We might live different lives, have different desires but still share those beliefs , does it mean that we are now part of one religion because we share those beliefs?

Kalatium:

I understand you bro.
There is also no doubt that :

1. The tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered empty by a group of women on the Sunday following the crucifixion.
2. Jesus' disciples had real experiences with one whom they believed was the risen Christ.
3. As a result of the preaching of these disciples, which had the resurrection at its center, the Christian church was established and grew.
Read further. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection

There is no proof of the above claims. All those claims are blatantly false.
Please look at the name of the site you are posting as an objective proof of those claims " desiringgod.org".
How can they be objective?

Please if you believe the above claims why would you ignore the claim that Muhammad flew to heaven in a flying horse? Muhammad's claims are even better because they were documented by his direct followers who later launched out the religion in the middle east. There was no time lag of documentation of his claims. Why don't you believe that?

I have said it again and again . No contemporary historian of th time documented Jesus so why do you think he was buried in a tomb instead of a mass grave. There was no special tomb for any Jesus or messianic claimant of the time, the Romans didn't have that time and clearly historians didn't have that time to document Jesus.

Who are Jesus disciples ? The gospels attributed to them were anonymous till names were put on them by Ireneaus. There is no way to document the existence of 12 disciples . He must have had followers but that didn't mean that the followers saw any miracles. You should also believe Abu Bakr when he tells you that Muhammad was the last messenger of god, Joseph Smith had followers too, its the same for any new movement or religion.

The church grew like other religions because of anew teaching that appealed to some people. The church grew to have just 5 percent of the Roman empire in its ranks by the year 300. That's not impressive at all.
Until Constantine made it the standard, that's when they could use political clout and power to persecute in order to increase their ranks.

The logical problem of evil has not been solved.

Stop citing an Alvin Platinga, please show us how the problem of evil has been solved. No philosopher or reputable scientist has ever refuted the logical problem of evil. The best Christians can say when their arguments are totally cornered is " we can't question god but we shall understand better when we die and go to heaven".

@OP, all the scriptures you posted didn't in any way address 10percent of epicurus positions on evil. Please I am waiting for a reasonable argument for you.

Kalatium:

From the link, your point # 6 has been debunked

How is my point debunked ?

The link uses facts to form an opinion, the link can't present a certified fact because such facts are hard to ascertain going back 2000 years.

And my point number 6 doesn't start that Jesus never existed but that the resurrection was a hoax.

Please read that link yourself, the article doesn't support the resurrection or miracles of Christ, the article only debunks the myth that Christ never existed.

You Christians can be so tiresome. Its as if you are discussing with me while blocking your ears and blindfolding yourself.

So the link you put up contains an article written by an atheist who is trying to stop conspiracy theorists going as far as claiming Christ was a myth and I agree with the article writer.

Kalatium:


Your argument is an old argument made by atheist which has been debunked by biblical scholars, an your points seem laughable to modern scholars. I don't want to type but you can visit http://www.strangenotions.com/an-atheist-historian-examines-the-evidence-for-jesus-part-1-of-2/

But try and read something when you want to reply.
I never proposed a Jesus myth theory. I believe he existed but his life was embellished and glorified by later disciples. What's hard to understand there?

All the points i raised in my post support my theory which is " Jesus was a rabbi that had a following, was crucified, later on the followers of his disciples embellished the story to create the great god man myth in order to present him as the messiah"

The article you posted made some very nice points but it was not debunking my claims but debunking the Christ myth theory.

I don't need you to type, I prefer you read and understand instead.

@OP

I urge you to desist from reading purely religious sources when you want to get fact.

The post you made about healings was from a biased source. One of the so called recipients of healing named Lisa Larios later suffered some fatal effects of neglecting her normal medication.

Read the link below
http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical5.htm

Your post about the gospels didn't negate or confirm anything.

Looking at your post about healing, ask yourself something, why are the miracle claims different from times past?
In the era of the gospels we heard of walking on water, multiplication of food, making lepers walk, making cripples whole etc ,

But in this present time, what we hear of are claims of healing a cancer patient and healing some other internal diseases, its not as if cancer is a small disease but it can't be verified if the faith healing actually caused the remission.

Why don't we hear of walking on water, making amputees whole, healing cripples etc
Its clear that in this era of greater journalistic scrutiny, the miraculous claims have been toned down. Doesn't that show you something?

Kalatium:
Questions
#1 If Jesus was not born of a Virgin birth, Did you mean that Joseph and Mary had intercourse to give birth to Jesus?
#2 If Jesus did not descent from David, which family line did he come from?
#3 If Jesus preexistence is false, why was he exalted among other Jews, why was he called the son of God or and second person of the trinity?
#4 If Jesus never performed miracles, why do early Christians recorded that Jesus perform miracles and even his disciples?
#5 If the account that we have in the gospels are unreliable which is other account of Jesus Life is accurate?
#6 If Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, why was his body missing? If you say the body was stolen where was it kept or buried that his body was not found?

I need answers to the above questions.

1. Yes if a human being existed then he is a product of copulation from sexual intercourse. Do you know anyone born of a virgin? The only way you can believe the virgin birth is by faith. But if you want to go the route of faith then no need to ask questions or to read books or engage in any intellectual activity. By faith, all things are true and all things can be false.

2. If we are to take the gospel as truth then he didn't descend from David. Cause Luke puts the genealogy of Jesus as descending from David through Joseph. But if you are to believe in the virgin birth then Jesus didn't descend from David since Joseph's seed wasn't in him.
If you are to face reality, there were hundreds of towns in Judea, he could have descended from any normal line. He most likely preached a reformative, compelling message. The issue is that he might have never claimed to be descended from David but his later disciples in order to present him as the messiah and keep his legend going on had to invent the son of David myth. One thing you need to know about reformers and great thinkers is that most times they were humble and didn't want fame but their followers wanted most times to profit from the new movement.

3. Many people have been called sons of god. The Jews never exalted him. Read the babylonian Talmud and see what the Jews think about Jesus. Consider that the Jews knew him better than most people and they utterly rejected the claims of his messianic authority.
Even Caesar claimed to be a son of god. Augustus had the title son of god and was exalted amongst the whole Roman empire. Why don't you see him as the son of god.

4. Early people generally recorded many superb claims. Am sure you have heard of Aristotle and respect his teaching, do you know Aristotle believed that Hercules was real, he also believed in dragons etc. Many ancient people believed in crazy things and they never failed to document their beliefs. Ancient Greeks believed that King Midas4 had a touch that turned everything to gold and they documented it. Documentation of superb miracles 2000 years ago when there was no standard of textual criticism, journalistic integrity, fact finding, video evidence doesn't serve as proof that the miracles happened. Try and read ancient folklore and see how ancient people thought. Think about your country Nigeria, people believed as at 20years ago that we played a game against India and we lost 99-1 , you know the whole story.

5. We can't get accurate accounts of his life, the same with Alexander the great, Aristotle, Socrates, Darius, Caesar etc. We also can't define the accent of the Latin language, we know the words but can't determine the accent, we don't know the first indo European language or first African language. So many facts are lost forever and ever in the past never to be examined accurately again. For example, please can you give me the first name of your great great great great great great grandfathers first wife?

6. Firstly, he wasn't popular when he died. If he was, then all contemporary historians within the time frame of 1AD to 34 AD would have attested to the fact. The earliest mentions were 30 to 40 years later. Romans crucified people together and kept their bodies in mass graves unattended to. It was very possible for dubious disciples to hide and steal the body and also dispose of it in order to claim resurrection. I doubt that happened, I believe the resurrection doctrine wasn't preached till 40 years later. There was no need to preserve his body when he died. If there were no standard cemeteries at that period then it follows that 40 years after his death, any body could claim he resurrected since there will be no means to verify it. Was there any picture of his face at that time? No
So the hoax was very easy to pull off.

There is almost no way that the character of Jesus could be wholly invented from scratch. Just like other historical figures, Jesus existed but his life was embellished and glorified to form the myth people believe now.

The contentions or biggest issues in the story of Jesus are;

1. His birth. Realistically no one conceives without intercourse.
But it was believed that he was conceived by a virgin. The issue with this is that at that period in history, this fantastic stories were quite common.
Ceasar claimed to be descended from a god, almost all Roman emperors claimed divine descent. The belief in a god man wasn't present in early Judaism but in Greco Roman cultures.

The virgin birth and son of god status was added to give the story and claims of early Christians much needed weight.

The ironical thing is that the same claims in this present world would scatter all forms of credibility but in ancient times the opposite was the case.

2. The claim of being descended from David.

Most Christians don't understand that in ancient times, people could claim anything for themselves to give their movement credence. Appolonius of Tyana did the same thing, Simon Bar Kochba did the same thing.
Record keeping was not meticulous and well detailed then, people could claim to be bastard children of emperors, they could basically claim anything and there would be no confirmation.

The genealogy in Matthew and Luke are very contradictory which shows that the later gospel writers tried to fit him into David's lineage.

3. The miracles of Jesus. The average Christian knows that he has to utilise deep faith to believe all the miracles like raising the dead, walking on water, feeding the five thousands etc.
The question I have for Christians is this,
Which is easier to do ?
- walk on water, raise the dead, heal the lepers etc or

- write a story on a papyrus scroll about a man that lived before that did all that and distribute the scrolls to a few people and have them distribute it over time. Mind you, this happened when people still taught that demons caused chicken pox, the world was flat and the sun and stars were in our sky.

It takes just a mustard seed of rational thinking to see that the latter is much easier and it has been replicated over time. People have created such belief systems over centuries and they still do today. In this modern world, what appears to be easier to do? Start a church or heal cancer with your hands. The answer to that shows how easy it is to start religions but how difficult it is to substantiate their claims.

4. Death and resurrection of Jesus. The rabbi Yahshua most likely was killed or crucified.

Based on the level of humiliation that crucifixion represented, no one at that time would have liked to claim that their teacher was crucified. The crucifixion most likely happened, the issue is that the events following the crucifixion are responsible for the creation of the Christian religion.
Based on the facts, Romans kept crucified people in mass graves, Jesus was not popular contrary to what the gospels claim, if Jesus was popular then every contemporary writer would've written about him at that time. Philo of Alexandria, tacitus etc never mentioned him. This shows that the Romans and Jews of that period weren't interested in his death. Anything could have been done to his body after death. It could have been hidden, burned, swapped etc. This makes it easier for the gospel writers of 4 decades later to claim that he was resurrected. Remember also that Muhammad also ascended to heaven in a flying horse but I don't think any Christian sees that claim as anything but a hoax. But the same Christian believes that a crucified Jesus resurrected from the dead based on hearsay. Where there video cameras then, was there any standard portrait of him at that time, how many people could describe him. If his body was presented , how many would have verified that it was him?


5. The teachings of Jesus. There are so many gospels but only four made it to orthodoxy. You can read the gospel of peter, Thomas[ which nearly made it to the NT], Mary Magdalene, James etc. The four gospels have very similar teachings but the remaining have divergent teachings.

Every doctrine of Christianity exists today because someone won a war and the victors always narrate history. The war for orthodoxy was won by the Pauline faction of Christianity. They defeated the Gnostics, nestorians, marcionites and all other sects.
Winning a war does not connote divine acceptance. If it does, how many Christians believe god was behind the Mongols, Napoleon and other great conquerors that were involved in heinous crimes.
The whole Christian doctrine is as a result of the victory of Pauline Christianity over other sects. If gnosticism had won that battle then all Christians today won't have believed in a physical Jesus but a spirit that appeared to man.

felixomor:


And you need tuition.

Am not going to go into a meaningless tirade with you.

But any body that assesses our comments can confirm who is in need and in need of whatever .

felixomor:


Please who are the "rational" people who reject the belief?

You? Or who?
Abeg. Save us the data.

Guy, you need rest

promise10:


sorry bro, don't take it personal. I am having fun here.

you even called me an idiot? I think that's how atheists can be good without God.

bro, I am yet to see the wrongs you are sweating to point out of my comment.

I called you an idiot

Count how many times you have insulted the OP and see who is acting immorally.

I apologise for calling you an idiot. I hope you can do the same to the OP . Lets now see who is inspired by a greater morality.