Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Kev]

Charlie, my argument is, there's virtually no secular historical evidence confirming that the jesus depicted in the "gospels" and/or New Testament is anything other than a fabricated character in a religious text/novel. Frankly, I couldn't give a fuck less, what christians, muslims, jews, or anyone else chooses to believe, I don't buy any of that bullshit.

What kind of evidence would convince you though?

It's an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again. So strong was their belief in having witnessed this they happily went to their deaths, being stoned, crucifed, ripped apart by horses and suffering other unimaginable tortures, in order to proclaim the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection.

The fact that the Christian church exists IS proof that Jesus existed. If he didn't, why did his followers all die for this belief?

It's a truly baffling anti religious mindset that tries to deny something that clearly happened as the historical ramifications were immense.

It's as absurd as suggesting William the Conqueror never existed and trying to explain the Battle of Hastings without him.

You simply cannot reasonably argue the birth of the church, under the most intense persecution and in the most violent manner, without accepting they had a founder.

It's pretty obvious that you've bought it all hook, line and sinker Bilbo.

It's also obvious that you're oblivious to the fact that there's not the slightest bit of physical evidence to support a historical Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Bought what hook, line and sinker? I've said nothing about the divinity of Christ here, His mission, the accuracy of the Gospels. I'm just using simple logic to prove that He must have existed.

Please give me a single example in human history of a movement that is grounded in actual history not having a founder.

Don't you find it a bit odd that "the founder" of Christianity never actually wrote anything himself? And don't you find it a bit suspicious that virtually nothing was written about the alleged Jesus during his lifetime? Here's a dude who's alleged to have spoke to multitudes of followers all over the "holyland", but no contemporary author writes a fucking word about him? Give a break man...

Oh, and Bilbo, please tell me who all these "eyewitnesses" are, fictitious characters in the gospels?

PS. Clue: an eyewitness is someone who witnesses an event, et al, it becomes "hearsay" when someone else writes about what an eyewitness alleges to have seen (but didn't write about themselves) 50 to 100 years later.

Let's just look at this bit to see how silly it is.

Could you invent a character now from 50 years ago? Forget about television and written evidence, just imagine you live in a small isolated village with no tv, no radio, no written records, just people's memories.

Now imagine that you want to invent a miraculous man who 50 years ago came into the village and healed everybody, claimed to be God, was crucified and rose from the dead.

He's not real, you've just made him up now but you want everyone to believe it.

Now there will be people in that village who have lived there for 50 years. They will also have had children and grandchildren, and presumably uf they witnessed such things then they would most definitely have passed this information on to their own children right?

So how would it have been forgotten in the 50 years from when it happened to when you made up the story?

You can't make up history and then retroactively transplant it back in time, because if he really did perform miracles in Gallilee for example it's a fair bet that 50 years later people would remember them!

Seriously can you not see how retarded this idea of yours is?