Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[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.