Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[pacfan]

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

[superheavyrhun]

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

I take it that you don't accept the argument that God was invented so that some people within society could use "talking" with God as a way to elevate themselves above their peers?

Personally, I think it is hard for any being with consciousness to accept that they are here for no reason greater than a long sequence of random occurrences. That is why people look for a higher being to explain their purpose, when there really is none.

[Kev]

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

I take it that you don't accept the argument that God was invented so that some people within society could use "talking" with God as a way to elevate themselves above their peers?

Personally, I think it is hard for any being with consciousness to accept that they are here for no reason greater than a long sequence of random occurrences. That is why people look for a higher being to explain their purpose, when there really is none.

Is it somehow easier intellectually to believe the entire universe exists for no reason, with no purpose at all and nobody or nothing behind it's origin and sustainment?

I mean, leaving aside how incredibly negative that is as a worldview, what do you base your reasoning on?

What examples of other highly complex and functioning systems have you seen and experienced that arose out of nothing, with no intelligence or design whatsoever and serve no purpose at all?

[Andre]

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

I take it that you don't accept the argument that God was invented so that some people within society could use "talking" with God as a way to elevate themselves above their peers?

Personally, I think it is hard for any being with consciousness to accept that they are here for no reason greater than a long sequence of random occurrences. That is why people look for a higher being to explain their purpose, when there really is none.

Im with that totally.

Im with the fact that the story of Jesus was changed totally for exactly the same reason too.

But if you search you will find "Jesus's"(Wasnt his name) but for the exercise The one known as Jesus relatives and even some his original followers right here on Earth right now doing exactly the same thing they were doing back then. Theres a hand full in most countrys and the hierarchy within the Catholic church still tries to get them kicked out of some areas, because they do work and heal the poor and sick for free out of their own pockets in some of the worse areas on Earth. Its confusing on every level for every person because of course some people will not be healed by their own choice, but many willing give permission and are 100% open specially kids. It is right there that the Love of God is experienced by both sides in its fullest and purest. Where else would you expect it to be?

In regards to being no higher reason for being here,then you could be allowing your self to be locked into the mental realm; That isnt bad, it is just a tool though, but at its extreme it can take over and then block other parts of you that you dont care to realize even exist; so there is one good reason for a start.

Its our point of view. Is the point at which you experience everything from. Some people form one of their own, more form them from their own relatives making and they protect it like a castle and fort and guard it to their very end: some smash their walls down and never look back; but they don't win any popularity contests.

[pacfan]

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

I take it that you don't accept the argument that God was invented so that some people within society could use "talking" with God as a way to elevate themselves above their peers?

Personally, I think it is hard for any being with consciousness to accept that they are here for no reason greater than a long sequence of random occurrences. That is why people look for a higher being to explain their purpose, when there really is none.

Perhaps, nobody can prove with pure logic the existence of God but nobody could absolutely prove He doesn't exist either. It's just that you chose one and I chose the other, there shouldn't be any problem there, my friend. About 'talking with God' if you were referring to my quote above, common superheavyrhun, you know better than to take me literally, anybody should know that, but I guess I'm misinterpretting you, and if I indeed am, I apologize.

Alright, gentlemen, I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not 'cause I know it will get nowhere. All I can say is that He either exists or not; that makes it 50-50, even. But with an even-steven chance, don't you think it's better to be on the safe side? Nuff of that...

Let's discuss something different but related.

Why is it that at the dawn of civilization, all tribes, as we call them, developed certain rituals or practices mostly religious in nature? For example, why did almost all tribes in the world develop some form of rituals like dancing & chantings? Why did most of them offer sacrifices? And as Adam and Eve had done, why did they start to cover themself and sex suddenly becomes something to be ashamed of? which is contrary to the evolutionary principle of 'let's go and multiply with abandon'?

It's a fact that when people engage in chanting-dancing rituals, which is usually their way to communicate with their Gods, their mind is brought into a sem-trance state or the alpha mode, as scientists classify them according to the brain-wave pattern. It's the same mode as when people go into deep prayer or meditation. But more intriguing is it's the same mode or state of mind when great discoveries were made, taking the classic example of how Isaac Newton discovered his gravity theory:

'...whilst he was musing in a garden it came into his thought that the power of gravity...'

So you see fellas, there is something there when people go into alpha state of mind. The early humans believed it to be the way to communicate with God. The Hindu's and the Buddhist's, and meditators like us believe it's the way to tap into the 'Universal Mind' which is a storehouse of all knowledge of this universe...

...Pak Fung asked God, 'why are hiding?
why do you not show Yourself unto mankind?'
God replied, 'I conceal Myself so that you
may learn to use the most precious gift
I gave you, the most potent instrument
to solve all you problems.'
Then, Pak Fung asked, what is this potent gift?'
God replied, 'Faith.'..

...where was I.. ah, yes...
so obviously, since the dawn of civilization, when man's eyes of knowledge was opened, so to speak, one of the first thing he did was to believe and worship God, and therefore, it is a fact that belief in God was almost intinctive in early human civilization. But the big question is why? There is a reason for everything in this world, but, even without regards to whether God exist or not, why did human beings at the dawn of civilzation worship God(s) in some form? Why was manking planted with the seed of religion from its earliest days. There must be a reason for that and that is the question...

(btw, I don't answer scoffs, I answer them with grunts privately, though. Okay, fellas keep your sense of humor and keep your cool. That first one to lose his cool loses...)

I take it that you don't accept the argument that God was invented so that some people within society could use "talking" with God as a way to elevate themselves above their peers?

Personally, I think it is hard for any being with consciousness to accept that they are here for no reason greater than a long sequence of random occurrences. That is why people look for a higher being to explain their purpose, when there really is none.

Is it somehow easier intellectually to believe the entire universe exists for no reason, with no purpose at all and nobody or nothing behind it's origin and sustainment?

I mean, leaving aside how incredibly negative that is as a worldview, what do you base your reasoning on?

What examples of other highly complex and functioning systems have you seen and experienced that arose out of nothing, with no intelligence or design whatsoever and serve no purpose at all?

Something to ponder on...

[Beanz]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

[superheavyrhun]

Sorry Pacfan, I was being a little tongue in cheek with my response, and I'm not going to get into a tizz about anything along these lines. I am an atheist, although I think everyone else has the right to believe as they see fit, as long as they're not pushing it down my throat.

I'm not at all militant about the subject, and I'm not trying to convert people to my view. The fact that I view them in this way doesn't mean I'm right, it is just my opinion, and I accept that it if you look right back it is impossible to prove it 100% one way or the other.

[Mars_ax]

In re: Gods/deities, I see no reason to believe that they weren't totally fabricated by man. In other words, man created god, and not the other way around.

Positive Atheism's Big List of Quotations

A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell -- mouths mercy, and invented hell -- mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

~ Mark Twain

[Kev]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

[Beanz]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

I was talking to Pacman in the quote you have used above which you would have realised had you taken the time to read it.

Mars Ax was talking to Victor Charlie about "the Jesus described in the Gospels" and so was clearly talking about Jesus Christ the Divine. Not just a guy called Jesus.It was at this point YOU interjected and tried to take the moral high ground, sneering at Mars's argument and calling his reasoning retarded. Nobody tried to draw you or change the discussion and yet you seem stupefied that anyone could question your own conclusions.
For a Christian you are a pretty offensive and bigoted individual. You seem unable to accept the fact that someone may come to a different conclusion than you have. I never once said he was fabricated 300 years later, I said that is when Constantine established the Christian church. You never demonstrated jack shit. You kept referring to the Bible like it was a reliable document and then that old chestnut Tacitus. Quite how you can deduce that I am an ill educated man of no substance knowing fuck all about me is remarkable, is it a gift bestowed upon you by Jesus? As for Richard Dawkins which you seemed to think was like pulling out a trump card!...Ha, really Bilbo. The joy of being an atheist is that it frees one from the bond of having to let someone do the thinking for you. I don't not need Dawkins much as i respect him to tell me what to think. He is not the King of the atheists just one of the more vocal.
You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I am glad you find Miles so well read and funny but if you wish only to debate serious issues with him you need to do that in live chat. This is an open forum and not everybody is gonna blow smoke up your ass.

[Mars_ax]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

That's not what I said fuckwit, the gospels were fabricated 50-300 years later, get your bullshit straight.

Now, back on ignore for you.

[Kev]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

I was talking to Pacman in the quote you have used above which you would have realised had you taken the time to read it.

Mars Ax was talking to Victor Charlie about "the Jesus described in the Gospels" and so was clearly talking about Jesus Christ the Divine. Not just a guy called Jesus.It was at this point YOU interjected and tried to take the moral high ground, sneering at Mars's argument and calling his reasoning retarded. Nobody tried to draw you or change the discussion and yet you seem stupefied that anyone could question your own conclusions.
For a Christian you are a pretty offensive and bigoted individual. You seem unable to accept the fact that someone may come to a different conclusion than you have. I never once said he was fabricated 300 years later, I said that is when Constantine established the Christian church. You never demonstrated jack shit. You kept referring to the Bible like it was a reliable document and then that old chestnut Tacitus. Quite how you can deduce that I am an ill educated man of no substance knowing fuck all about me is remarkable, is it a gift bestowed upon you by Jesus? As for Richard Dawkins which you seemed to think was like pulling out a trump card!...Ha, really Bilbo. The joy of being an atheist is that it frees one from the bond of having to let someone do the thinking for you. I don't not need Dawkins much as i respect him to tell me what to think. He is not the King of the atheists just one of the more vocal.
You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I am glad you find Miles so well read and funny but if you wish only to debate serious issues with him you need to do that in live chat. This is an open forum and not everybody is gonna blow smoke up your ass.

Ok some clarifications.

First, why did you deduce I was a Christian? Have you not read my other posts on the other boards? I don't think any church would accept me however low their numbers. I believe the Bible to be the best explanation of man's origins that is true. But I don't go to church, pray, speak to God, and I certainly don't believe He speaks to me.

Second. Referring to Tacitus, the greatest of all the Roman historians and the number one source for most of our knowledge of the Roman world as 'that old chestnut', is extraordinarily ignorant and the ultimate head in the sand mentality. Jesus was a real person, give it up, it's over.

Thirdly, the reason I mentioned Dawkins is that I regard Richard Dawkins as more knowledgable on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and the untruths of the Bible than you. Sorry about that, but I just do, and so will everybody else. He admits publically, that Jesus was a real person. That means your opinion on the matter of Jesus' historicity counts for shit. It's like you telling me you don't care that what Copernicus and Galilleo had to say about the motion of the sun, you have your own opinion. Well, you are entitled to it, but it's wrong and nobody cares.

Fourthly. How did I deduce you are an uneducated man? Simple, I have been reading your posts.

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Consider all the cults you like, Waco, Jim Jones, Jehovah's Witness, Scientology etc. How many of them didn't have a founder? It's an absurd proposition, rejected by every major scholar, historian and even leading atheists. Again, you were wrong on this.

If you could admit you got it wrong and concede that Jesus was an histoical person although you reject all the miraculous claims about Him I could at least respect your position. But you still try and insist that Jesus was entirely mythical and that Tacitus and Dawkins, two men of far greater knowledge and stature than yourself were wrong.

[Beanz]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

I was talking to Pacman in the quote you have used above which you would have realised had you taken the time to read it.

Mars Ax was talking to Victor Charlie about "the Jesus described in the Gospels" and so was clearly talking about Jesus Christ the Divine. Not just a guy called Jesus.It was at this point YOU interjected and tried to take the moral high ground, sneering at Mars's argument and calling his reasoning retarded. Nobody tried to draw you or change the discussion and yet you seem stupefied that anyone could question your own conclusions.
For a Christian you are a pretty offensive and bigoted individual. You seem unable to accept the fact that someone may come to a different conclusion than you have. I never once said he was fabricated 300 years later, I said that is when Constantine established the Christian church. You never demonstrated jack shit. You kept referring to the Bible like it was a reliable document and then that old chestnut Tacitus. Quite how you can deduce that I am an ill educated man of no substance knowing fuck all about me is remarkable, is it a gift bestowed upon you by Jesus? As for Richard Dawkins which you seemed to think was like pulling out a trump card!...Ha, really Bilbo. The joy of being an atheist is that it frees one from the bond of having to let someone do the thinking for you. I don't not need Dawkins much as i respect him to tell me what to think. He is not the King of the atheists just one of the more vocal.
You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I am glad you find Miles so well read and funny but if you wish only to debate serious issues with him you need to do that in live chat. This is an open forum and not everybody is gonna blow smoke up your ass.

Ok some clarifications.

First, why did you deduce I was a Christian? Have you not read my other posts on the other boards? I don't think any church would accept me however low their numbers. I believe the Bible to be the best explanation of man's origins that is true. But I don't go to church, pray, speak to God, and I certainly don't believe He speaks to me.

Second. Referring to Tacitus, the greatest of all the Roman historians and the number one source for most of our knowledge of the Roman world as 'that old chestnut', is extraordinarily ignorant and the ultimate head in the sand mentality. Jesus was a real person, give it up, it's over.

Thirdly, the reason I mentioned Dawkins is that I regard Richard Dawkins as more knowledgable on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and the untruths of the Bible than you. Sorry about that, but I just do, and so will everybody else. He admits publically, that Jesus was a real person. That means your opinion on the matter of Jesus' historicity counts for shit. It's like you telling me you don't care that what Copernicus and Galilleo had to say about the motion of the sun, you have your own opinion. Well, you are entitled to it, but it's wrong and nobody cares.

Fourthly. How did I deduce you are an uneducated man? Simple, I have been reading your posts.

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Consider all the cults you like, Waco, Jim Jones, Jehovah's Witness, Scientology etc. How many of them didn't have a founder? It's an absurd proposition, rejected by every major scholar, historian and even leading atheists. Again, you were wrong on this.

If you could admit you got it wrong and concede that Jesus was an histoical person although you reject all the miraculous claims about Him I could at least respect your position. But you still try and insist that Jesus was entirely mythical and that Tacitus and Dawkins, two men of far greater knowledge and stature than yourself were wrong.

First here is your post in the original Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe "

OWNED

[Beanz]

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

You are rather a strange man if I may say so.

When debating with you and Mars Ax I just stuck soley to facts and didn't get involved in any religious discussion whatsoever.

All I pointed out was that Jesus was a real historical figure. I proved it beyond reasonable doubt, and having nothing else to come at me with you attempted to change the subject and try and draw me to questions of Jesus' divintiy, miraculaous claims etc, none of which was part of the original discussion.

You and Mars insisted Jesus was a fabricated creation from 300 years after the supposed events of his lifetime.

I demonstrated that you were factually incorrect, and you started rambling about nonsense.

I won't bother to get an admission of error from you. You are an ill educated man and of no consequence. Instead I will merely repeat what Richard Dawkins, the most educated of athiests, and therefore someone worthy of debate said when challenged directly on the subject,

'If I have alluded to the fact that there are scholars who deny the existance of Christ, I take that back, he existed.'


That was all our argument was ever about. I proved my point. You were wrong. You are wrong about many other things too, but I don't rate your capacity to think and reason highly enough to debate you.

Miles is fun, as he is at least well read and funny. I'll just stick to debating serious issues with him.

I was talking to Pacman in the quote you have used above which you would have realised had you taken the time to read it.

Mars Ax was talking to Victor Charlie about "the Jesus described in the Gospels" and so was clearly talking about Jesus Christ the Divine. Not just a guy called Jesus.It was at this point YOU interjected and tried to take the moral high ground, sneering at Mars's argument and calling his reasoning retarded. Nobody tried to draw you or change the discussion and yet you seem stupefied that anyone could question your own conclusions.
For a Christian you are a pretty offensive and bigoted individual. You seem unable to accept the fact that someone may come to a different conclusion than you have. I never once said he was fabricated 300 years later, I said that is when Constantine established the Christian church. You never demonstrated jack shit. You kept referring to the Bible like it was a reliable document and then that old chestnut Tacitus. Quite how you can deduce that I am an ill educated man of no substance knowing fuck all about me is remarkable, is it a gift bestowed upon you by Jesus? As for Richard Dawkins which you seemed to think was like pulling out a trump card!...Ha, really Bilbo. The joy of being an atheist is that it frees one from the bond of having to let someone do the thinking for you. I don't not need Dawkins much as i respect him to tell me what to think. He is not the King of the atheists just one of the more vocal.
You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I am glad you find Miles so well read and funny but if you wish only to debate serious issues with him you need to do that in live chat. This is an open forum and not everybody is gonna blow smoke up your ass.

Ok some clarifications.

First, why did you deduce I was a Christian? Have you not read my other posts on the other boards? I don't think any church would accept me however low their numbers. I believe the Bible to be the best explanation of man's origins that is true. But I don't go to church, pray, speak to God, and I certainly don't believe He speaks to me.

Second. Referring to Tacitus, the greatest of all the Roman historians and the number one source for most of our knowledge of the Roman world as 'that old chestnut', is extraordinarily ignorant and the ultimate head in the sand mentality. Jesus was a real person, give it up, it's over.

Thirdly, the reason I mentioned Dawkins is that I regard Richard Dawkins as more knowledgable on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and the untruths of the Bible than you. Sorry about that, but I just do, and so will everybody else. He admits publically, that Jesus was a real person. That means your opinion on the matter of Jesus' historicity counts for shit. It's like you telling me you don't care that what Copernicus and Galilleo had to say about the motion of the sun, you have your own opinion. Well, you are entitled to it, but it's wrong and nobody cares.

Fourthly. How did I deduce you are an uneducated man? Simple, I have been reading your posts.

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“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.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Consider all the cults you like, Waco, Jim Jones, Jehovah's Witness, Scientology etc. How many of them didn't have a founder? It's an absurd proposition, rejected by every major scholar, historian and even leading atheists. Again, you were wrong on this.

If you could admit you got it wrong and concede that Jesus was an histoical person although you reject all the miraculous claims about Him I could at least respect your position. But you still try and insist that Jesus was entirely mythical and that Tacitus and Dawkins, two men of far greater knowledge and stature than yourself were wrong.

First here is your post in the original Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe "

OWNED

Secondly

"Even though the passage is authentic to Tacitus, it might be argued that Tacitus received his information about the origin of the Christian name from Christians themselves. This could be argued on six grounds: (1) Tacitus does not identify his source explicitly. (2) Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. (3) Tacitus refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus. (4) As meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). (5) There is insufficient motive for Tacitus to research about this Christus in any detail, as the reference appears in Tacitus merely as an explanation of the origin of the name Christian, which in turn is being described only as an example of Nero's cruelty. (6) Finally, there would be no reason for Tacitus not to take the basic Christian story at face value, especially since the idea that they were of recent origin would correctly classify Christianity as a superstition."

[Beanz]

Bilbo you said
"Thirdly, the reason I mentioned Dawkins is that I regard Richard Dawkins as more knowledgable on the subject of the historicity of Jesus and the untruths of the Bible than you. Sorry about that, but I just do, and so will everybody else. He admits publically, that Jesus was a real person. That means your opinion on the matter of Jesus' historicity counts for shit. It's like you telling me you don't care that what Copernicus and Galilleo had to say about the motion of the sun, you have your own opinion. Well, you are entitled to it, but it's wrong and nobody cares."

How open minded of you Dawkins is not some higher authority that trumps everyone's opinion.