Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

How can you even define the bible as theory? Its fking ridiculous...
Its not a theory, its a fairytale

At 1/29/08 09:23 AM, zoolrule wrote: How can you even define the bible as theory? Its fking ridiculous...
Its not a theory, its a fairytale

Despite the fact that many characters in the Bible have been found to actually have existed, many others were likely to have existed and our morals are very much based off of this 'fairytale' as you call it?

At 1/29/08 04:04 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/29/08 02:04 AM, poxpower wrote: And don't reply to this, reply to the last post I made. You're just trying to start a flame war otherwise.

Shut the fuck up you pathetic idiotic ignorant fucking moron, I'm right.

Damn, how I could not see this point before? I could I miss that? I concede, you are too strong.

At 1/29/08 01:06 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/29/08 09:23 AM, zoolrule wrote: How can you even define the bible as theory? Its fking ridiculous...
Its not a theory, its a fairytale

Despite the fact that many characters in the Bible have been found to actually have existed, many others were likely to have existed and our morals are very much based off of this 'fairytale' as you call it?

I'll do you one better. The ant exists. The cricket exists. 100% sure, we've observed ants and crickets today. Our morals are very much based off the story of the ant and the cricket.
Therefore, the fable of the ant and the cricket is a theory, not a fairytale.

At 1/29/08 01:06 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/29/08 09:23 AM, zoolrule wrote: How can you even define the bible as theory? Its fking ridiculous...
Its not a theory, its a fairytale

Despite the fact that many characters in the Bible have been found to actually have existed, many others were likely to have existed and our morals are very much based off of this 'fairytale' as you call it?

I would like to know of these charactors you speak of.

You don't the Bible to have morals. Otherwise all nonbelievers would be in jail.

And lets not forget this fairytale is full of factual and contradicting errors.

Want proof?

At 1/29/08 02:29 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/29/08 01:06 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/29/08 09:23 AM, zoolrule wrote: How can you even define the bible as theory? Its fking ridiculous...
Its not a theory, its a fairytale

Despite the fact that many characters in the Bible have been found to actually have existed, many others were likely to have existed and our morals are very much based off of this 'fairytale' as you call it?

I would like to know of these charactors you speak of.

Jesus, Abraham, David, Luke, Ishmael, Isaac. I think that's it.

You don't the Bible to have morals. Otherwise all nonbelievers would be in jail.

I'm not saying that you need the Bible to have morals. I'm saying that...Put it this way. If morals were based off the Scientology doctrine, you could kill anyone who disagreed with you in the slightest and get away with it if you did it in front of a police station.

And lets not forget this fairytale is full of factual and contradicting errors.

If we passed a book around 30 or so members of the same family that were all together on the same Tuesday night, and asked them to write what they did inside it, do you think they would all be the same?

:"Jesus, Abraham, David, Luke, Ishmael, Isaac. I think that's it."

Thats not what i was talking about, Maybe these people did exist. But all of the part with god and miracles, ITS ALL 100% BULLSHIT, All it is is Just a matter of statistics, and lack of knowledge.

At 1/29/08 02:55 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

You don't the Bible to have morals. Otherwise all nonbelievers would be in jail.

I'm not saying that you need the Bible to have morals. I'm saying that...Put it this way. If morals were based off the Scientology doctrine, you could kill anyone who disagreed with you in the slightest and get away with it if you did it in front of a police station.

Luckily morals are based on neither then. If morals were based off the Christian doctrine, you could kill any gay person. If there's one thing Scripture is unambiguous about, it's that gays are sinful abominations. And stoning women would presumable also be ok. Because it says so in the Old Testament, and Jesus says that it still holds, but he also says that we shouldn't stone women unless we are without sin ourselves. How about them contradictions.

Besides, clearly you disagree with the morality proposed by scientology, and agree with the morality proposed by a sane interpretation of Christianity, so that means there must be some sort of "universal" morality by which we judge these two moralities. Which also means that the Bible has nothing to do with the source of our morals.

And lets not forget this fairytale is full of factual and contradicting errors.

If we passed a book around 30 or so members of the same family that were all together on the same Tuesday night, and asked them to write what they did inside it, do you think they would all be the same?

I think that we would get people writing that there are things like circles with a value of Pi equal to 3, and describing spheres with edges. But it'd depend more on the amount of alcohol consumed, not on the amount of people. Basically, your point is "yes it's full of factual errors and contradictions, but this is understandable, so the Bible is a valid source for a scientific theory"?

At 1/29/08 04:19 PM, zoolrule wrote:

"Jesus, Abraham, David, Luke, Ishmael, Isaac. I think that's it."

Thats not what i was talking about, Maybe these people did exist. But all of the part with god and miracles, ITS ALL 100% BULLSHIT, All it is is Just a matter of statistics, and lack of knowledge.

I know that there's no concrete evidence Jesus existed. I also know there's no evidence at all a lot of Biblical figures, like Moses and everything before, existed either. His source for saying 'these people definitely existed' is most likely not objective.

At 1/29/08 04:28 PM, Earfetish wrote: I know that there's no concrete evidence Jesus existed. I also know there's no evidence at all a lot of Biblical figures, like Moses and everything before, existed either. His source for saying 'these people definitely existed' is most likely not objective.

Nor does it really matter anyway. Achilles, Troy, Hector, did they really exist? Ask someone smarter than me. However, I am pretty sure that Achilles wasn't dipped in the Styx giving him immortality, even if Greek Mythos says so

Did a guy named Moses live in that era? Quite probably. Did a guy named Moses get a message from God, part the sea in the way depicted in the movies, lead the slaves out of Egypt, wander for 40 days in the desert and become 120 years old? Hardly likely.

At 1/29/08 04:34 PM, Togukawa wrote:
Nor does it really matter anyway. Achilles, Troy, Hector, did they really exist? Ask someone smarter than me. However, I am pretty sure that Achilles wasn't dipped in the Styx giving him immortality, even if Greek Mythos says so

i'm pretty sure thats what gave him his weakness, his heel. But I could be wrong.

Moses 120 years old? Hardly likely.

Is that a well known fact by non-Jews, that Moses lived to be 120? I wouldn't have thouht any secular people would know something obscure like that.

At 1/29/08 04:41 PM, therealsylvos wrote:

At 1/29/08 04:34 PM, Togukawa wrote:
Nor does it really matter anyway. Achilles, Troy, Hector, did they really exist? Ask someone smarter than me. However, I am pretty sure that Achilles wasn't dipped in the Styx giving him immortality, even if Greek Mythos says so

i'm pretty sure thats what gave him his weakness, his heel. But I could be wrong.

Yes, according to Greek Mythos. But common sense tells us that there is no such thing as the river Styx, so if a legendary warrior named Achilles really existed, he wasn't really immortal, because he wasn't really dipped in the Styx, since the Styx doesn't really exist. Even if the character "Achilles" is real. My point is that it's not because the characters from the book existed, that all their exploits and characteristics as described in the book are real too. Nor does the fact that the characters being described are historical, give any indication of the veracity of the book.

Moses 120 years old? Hardly likely.

Is that a well known fact by non-Jews, that Moses lived to be 120? I wouldn't have thouht any secular people would know something obscure like that.

I don't know whether it's well known, but many important religious characters in the Old Testament have some kind of symbolic age that isn't realistic. The amazing google search does the rest. It's not like I know the age of Moses by heart, being a secular person :)

At 1/29/08 04:53 PM, Togukawa wrote:
Yes, according to Greek Mythos. But common sense tells us that there is no such thing as the river Styx, so if a legendary warrior named Achilles really existed, he wasn't really immortal, because he wasn't really dipped in the Styx, since the Styx doesn't really exist. Even if the character "Achilles" is real. My point is that it's not because the characters from the book existed, that all their exploits and characteristics as described in the book are real too. Nor does the fact that the characters being described are historical, give any indication of the veracity of the book.

I wasn't arguing that you said it gave him immortality, and i thought it was what gave him his weakness.

I don't know whether it's well known, but many important religious characters in the Old Testament have some kind of symbolic age that isn't realistic. The amazing google search does the rest. It's not like I know the age of Moses by heart, being a secular person :)

Oh ok. Its just that by Jews we always say "may you live to 120" because that represents a full life because thats how long Moses lived for.

At 1/29/08 04:57 PM, therealsylvos wrote: I wasn't arguing that you said it gave him immortality, and i thought it was what gave him his weakness.

Ah no you're wrong then. He was dipped in the Styx as a baby, and his whole body was covered, except for his heel where his mother held him. So he was completely immortal, except for his heel because it hadn't been covered by the water of the Styx. Or so the myth goes :)

Oh ok. Its just that by Jews we always say "may you live to 120" because that represents a full life because thats how long Moses lived for.

Cool, didn't know that.

Wow.

I don't look at this topic for a month, and here we are talking Homer.

WTF?

At 1/28/08 07:40 PM, Memorize wrote: Disturbed in what way?

the stratii (sediment layers) in which fossils are found can be disturbed in many number of ways including animal burrows, earthquakes, mud slides and human activity.

I am afraid that the Administrator might ban me if i make my own thread for this, even though i think it should. [Given the liberties that Drakim has taken]

But whatever.

Perfect Chaos in an Atheist universe

I think when I wrote 'The infallible Thesis of atheism' I failed to promote the general concepts which I felt needed understanding.

Technically, this is not an Atheism Vs. Non Atheism Discussion; and I will try to address points unique to any kind of Religious discussion thread on the BBS, doing so requires your cooperation.

When I say that there is perfect chaos in an Atheist universe, I assert with full certainty that if you are an atheist, and you believe that natural selection, and therefore, making an argument against some of the things I am going to pose here will be near impossible.

Can you argue against the following;

Altruism is better than acts of hostility, even though there is NO such thing as a universal moral code for conscious humans, and acts of hostility are sometimes more effective at getting to ones goals if they can get away with it. [Hello; Oil Companies? Successful conquests?] I am not asserting that Atheists are immoral, I am asserting that Atheists should accept that Altruism is no better than morality] In fact, my guess is the reason that everyone argues altruism is better is because it makes it easier for them, because saying it is better doesn't mean you are going to be 'Fair and honest and just'. Almost like a 'You go up first, I'll watch your back [not].

Can you do it?

Is Peace better than war? Even when a war like WWII brought many other changes we believe are independently positive. Even when it allowed for a group of humans to prove dominant over others.

Is slavery < Freedom? Simply because it sounds right to us?

There are many things you can argue with Evolution as the creator of the human race, and no Karma or Stone Tablets of commandments to tell you otherwise. [lets not turn this into a commandments argument, you KNOW what I am talking about]

I don't believe Atheists are immoral, No trait can be properly attributed to a single group of people. But I do believe atheists have no logic behind the morality, it might be 'superior' to morality based on a reward in heaven, but if it's superior, there needs to be a reason. "Because it's right" is pretentious, and "Because I feel like it" Isn't very Awe inspiring. [At least not compared to the idea of a giant floating man in the sky giving orders]

If you act immorally, other people treat you badly.

Anyway, one of the greatest things about Humanity is our humanity. It doesn't need Social Darwinism behind it; a lot of people feel happier knowing others are being treated with respect. And I have no desire for slaves - we know that the world will be better if we don't have them.

I don't know what the confusion is. You act morally and alruistically, because if you don't, you feel bad. You're a social animal, and you've been hard-wired to act correctly in certain social situations. for your own benefit.

There are still politicians who want to be all-powerful dictators, but most people fit into a more regular mndset; the one that would be most beneficial to our survival in an environment where we can't be an all-powerful dictator.

Like bees, or ants.

At 1/29/08 09:00 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you act immorally, other people treat you badly.

That explains why the Cool kids in highschools have a reputation for kindness and generosity

Anyway, one of the greatest things about Humanity is our humanity. It doesn't need Social Darwinism behind it; a lot of people feel happier knowing others are being treated with respect. And I have no desire for slaves - we know that the world will be better if we don't have them.

Alot of MODERN people, who had that thought INGRAINED into their mind. If you are born in a slave society, where one group is naturally superior to another, you accept it. If you are brought up to think that 'good is good' then you will think that way, if you think 'good is good' but the 'good' is slavery... It's the same thing.

I don't know what the confusion is. You act morally and alruistically, because if you don't, you feel bad. You're a social animal, and you've been hard-wired to act correctly in certain social situations. for your own benefit.

That's only if the morality is there to begin with. once again you are using arguments that go on the pretense that humans are naturally. Ever heard of a 'Meme' it's a common term used by biologists like Dawkins, it's an idea that is shared by humans in a community like animal instincts, they can change, they often change.

There are still politicians who want to be all-powerful dictators, but most people fit into a more regular mndset; the one that would be most beneficial to our survival in an environment where we can't be an all-powerful dictator.

That's why communism has been shown to work so well, and not Capitalism; where people compete for a living; the competition is more finanscial than physical or militaristic.

At 1/29/08 05:50 PM, Togukawa wrote:

Ah no you're wrong then. He was dipped in the Styx as a baby, and his whole body was covered, except for his heel where his mother held him. So he was completely immortal, except for his heel because it hadn't been covered by the water of the Styx. Or so the myth goes :)

You know right there that the story is bullshit because the guy lived his whole life in Sandals. It's like winning the lottery, cashing it out in 20 dollar bills and constantly walking around with a huge wheelbarrow of cash.
Achilles: possibly one of history's greatest dumbasses.

At 1/29/08 10:05 PM, poxpower wrote: Achilles: possibly one of history's greatest dumbasses.

Achilles: "damnit..."
random Greek: "whats wrong?"
Achilles: "the beach is covered in sharp pebbles, well as long as i don't get any in my s..." *falls dead*
random Greek: "fucking idiot"

without their mighty hero the Greeks were found to be no match for the Trojans who proceeded to plough through them with a mighty shaft sheathed in unlubricated latex.

At 1/29/08 08:46 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I am afraid that the Administrator might ban me if i make my own thread for this, even though i think it should. [Given the liberties that Drakim has taken]

I am honored.

Perfect Chaos in an Atheist universe

I think when I wrote 'The infallible Thesis of atheism' I failed to promote the general concepts which I felt needed understanding.

Technically, this is not an Atheism Vs. Non Atheism Discussion; and I will try to address points unique to any kind of Religious discussion thread on the BBS, doing so requires your cooperation.

When I say that there is perfect chaos in an Atheist universe, I assert with full certainty that if you are an atheist, and you believe that natural selection, and therefore, making an argument against some of the things I am going to pose here will be near impossible.

Might I point out that there is absolutely no rule that says that if you think natural selection is the thing that drives our evolution, then you must use natural selection as your morality?

It's an error that seems to be maken, that goes like this:

1. Religious people think that their religion explains the origin of man.
2. Religious people gets their morality from religion, thereby their origin.
3. Atheist tend to think that evolution is the origin of man.

Conclusion: Atheist gets their morality from evolution.

Just, let me start by pointing out that this logic can never hold water, no matter if you have a retard 5 year old child think over it. It jumps several times and statements often have absolutely no connection. Why must the same parallel apply to religion and evolution when it comes to morality? Who decided that origin is connected to morality at all? None of these lines of thinking are justified at all.

To put it simple, where does the idea that atheist get their morality from evolution? It's just pulled out of the blue and assumed by theists.

Just let me say directly that the assumption is incorrect.

In fact, I'd say that the majority of atheist does not get their morality from evolution. Most atheist have another source of morality, such as some
ideals (the golden rule anyone?)

Can you argue against the following;

Altruism is better than acts of hostility, even though there is NO such thing as a universal moral code for conscious humans, and acts of hostility are sometimes more effective at getting to ones goals if they can get away with it. [Hello; Oil Companies? Successful conquests?] I am not asserting that Atheists are immoral, I am asserting that Atheists should accept that Altruism is no better than morality] In fact, my guess is the reason that everyone argues altruism is better is because it makes it easier for them, because saying it is better doesn't mean you are going to be 'Fair and honest and just'. Almost like a 'You go up first, I'll watch your back [not].

It's still perfectly possible to be an atheist and belive in an global solid morality.

Can you do it?

Is Peace better than war? Even when a war like WWII brought many other changes we believe are independently positive. Even when it allowed for a group of humans to prove dominant over others.

It might have been, but just because good things may come from evil actions doesn't mean that evil actions are justified. I could find a lottery ticket because I was running from the cops (I murdered somebody), and the lottery ticket wins millions, and I donate all to charity. That doesn't however, mean that murder is a good thing because it lead to charity.

Is slavery < Freedom? Simply because it sounds right to us?

We have chosen it to be. You have to realize that if there is no God to give us morality, then there is neither any God to deny us morality. The universe won't come to us and tell us that our morality is wrong. There is no higher power to tell us that our morality is just temporary or wrong.

In effect, in the absence of a God that gives us morality, our own morality has the same status as a God given one. Just look at all the religions. They all offer morality, but they can't all be true. That means, man made that morality at some point.

I don't believe Atheists are immoral, No trait can be properly attributed to a single group of people. But I do believe atheists have no logic behind the morality, it might be 'superior' to morality based on a reward in heaven, but if it's superior, there needs to be a reason. "Because it's right" is pretentious, and "Because I feel like it" Isn't very Awe inspiring. [At least not compared to the idea of a giant floating man in the sky giving orders]

But that is your problem. You compare atheist morality versus theist morality from an theist standing point. Let me show you the flaws you are missing because of this:

1. Who decides that a giant floating man in the sky is more awe inspiring than "because I feel like it"?
2. Who says that the awe inspiring of something makes it more relevant?
3. Who says that a superior morality brings about the least suffering/best result? The worst things can come from the best intentions.

I don't believe Atheists are immoral, No trait can be properly attributed to a single group of people. But I do believe atheists have no logic behind the morality, it might be 'superior' to morality based on a reward in heaven, but if it's superior, there needs to be a reason. "Because it's right" is pretentious, and "Because I feel like it" Isn't very Awe inspiring. [At least not compared to the idea of a giant floating man in the sky giving orders]

If you don't accept the instinctivist argument (because I feel like it) simple pragmatic empathy works pretty well. Or you could base you decisions on utilititarianism, or Kantian deontology, or Virtue ethics or etc. Moral philosophy that does not include God is very very well established.

At 1/30/08 02:52 AM, Drakim wrote:

1) God Created the Human race in the eyes of a Theist
2) God Set down Specific laws [According to some] Which tell people how to live their lives
3) Many of these contradict evolution principles if they were put into SERIOUS practice. The only reason they don't is because they are not. EI a perfect world of perfect humans is not as evolution, the OTHER creator intended. Unless you intend to show dirrect correlations between religious morality and the superior morality of atheists as a means to confirm that Religion get's it's morality from evolution i hold the argument
4) Furthermore, some religions reject evolution as the means of creation
5) Never did i say once that atheists got their morality from evolution, i said Atheists have no ground to think on a western moral basis because Evolution encourages human beings to do whatever it takes to beat others in competition for survival. The only reason people don't is because most of them either 1, lack the ambition, or 2, suffer from moral inhibbition based on western standards of morality. [Remember your middle ages, the church tells people to do things [be humble, chaste, poor] and they go off doing the exact opposite, and flourish at the same time?
6) Everything that humans do reflects evolution, and MUCH of what humans have done was looked down upon, and i am against that; Because it all fits perfectly into evolution.

i wanted to post more, i have to go./

At 1/30/08 07:00 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) God Created the Human race in the eyes of a Theist

Not by definition. If you belive in a God like Odin, then you are still a theist, but the story of Odin does not include the creation of man.

Man being created by God is very common for theist with belief in one single God, but it is not required.

2) God Set down Specific laws [According to some] Which tell people how to live their lives

Fair enough.

3) Many of these contradict evolution principles if they were put into SERIOUS practice.

You are mixing up something about evolution. Evolution simply says what has happened, not what we should do. Survival of the fittest was the way we evolved, but the evolutionary theory does not in any way say that "we should continue this path" or anything of the like. To say that evolution somehow offers us a sort of morality or path to follow, is like saying gravity wants us to fall down.

You cannot practice evolution in the way you seem to imply. It's not a set of rules or regulations that we have to follow. If somehow "survival of the kindest" worked in today's world, that would equally be evolution as the "survival of the fittest". It's just that the latter one has been the one in effect up until now. Evolution does not in any way say that this is the only way it can work, nor that this is the way we should continue to live. Evolution simply does not make any sort of statement about it.

It's kinda like saying the statement "4" implies "2+2", when there are in fact several ways to go to 4, such as "1+3". Not to mention that 4 is simply a number, and does not in any way imply it's origin. (perhaps bad example, but it's the same logical fallacy)

The only reason they don't is because they are not. EI a perfect world of perfect humans is not as evolution, the OTHER creator intended.

How do you know? Yet again, you stand in a theist viewpoint, saying that the theist viewpoint is better than the non-theist viewpoint. Look at it more objective.

Unless you intend to show dirrect correlations between religious morality and the superior morality of atheists as a means to confirm that Religion get's it's morality from evolution i hold the argument

Religion getting it's morality from evolution is another subject. I simply said that religion got it's morality from humans, because there is more than one religion, and due to conflicting nature, they cannot all be true. Thus, several religions must be completely man made and have morality that comes directly from man. This means that morality can come from man.

4) Furthermore, some religions reject evolution as the means of creation

What part of my statement was this connected to? I can't seem to find out what you are trying to say.

5) Never did i say once that atheists got their morality from evolution, i said Atheists have no ground to think on a western moral basis because Evolution encourages human beings to do whatever it takes to beat others in competition for survival.

Here you do that connection again. Let me make it clear, atheism has no connection to evolution whatsoever. Morality and all other things.

Atheism and evolution is simply common together, in the same way Christianity and Republicanism is, so you should not for one second assume that they have a real connection.

So, it doesn't matter what evolution says or what evolution does or what evolution implies. It has no bearing on an atheist. The thing you should be arguing with is evolutionists, those who believe in evolution. Atheism is simply the wrong target, as it is simply the lack of theism. It has nothing to do with one random scientific theory in the modern history of mankind. In fact, there are atheist who doesn't even believe that evolution exist.

The only reason people don't is because most of them either 1, lack the ambition, or 2, suffer from moral inhibbition based on western standards of morality. [Remember your middle ages, the church tells people to do things [be humble, chaste, poor] and they go off doing the exact opposite, and flourish at the same time?
6) Everything that humans do reflects evolution, and MUCH of what humans have done was looked down upon, and i am against that; Because it all fits perfectly into evolution.

You have to understand that evolution isn't a predefined set of positive things and negative things. If there suddenly came demons who ate anybody who was greedy, then evolution would directly be aimed at not being greedy. If the demons ate anybody who was generous, then evolution would be aimed at making people greedy. Heck, if the demons killed anybody who was alive, while people who took suicide was reborn a year later out of thin air, then evolution would encourage suicide, as strange as it sounds.

Evolution doesn't have any sort of set of rules, it's like water, fitting into any sort of situation.

i wanted to post more, i have to go./

No worries, there is no rush.

And for all of you saying contradiction in the Evolution theory, its simply a LIE, There is none, NOTHING.
While the bible is one big contradiction to itself.
The problem with Theisms, Is that every time you find a contradiction in their "Theory", they just "develop" their belief, thats because they don't "believe" with their brain. For example : The stone paradox - "Can god create a stone that he cant lift?" So people answer me - "Its just problem in your catch of god". and it never ends, they always find an excuse -
So when you think about it - even the Theism have been through Evolution, pretty ironic right?
conclude :
Theism - Believe with your heart.
Atheism - Believe with your mind.

At 1/29/08 04:19 PM, zoolrule wrote:

"Jesus, Abraham, David, Luke, Ishmael, Isaac. I think that's it."

Thats not what i was talking about, Maybe these people did exist. But all of the part with god and miracles, ITS ALL 100% BULLSHIT, All it is is Just a matter of statistics, and lack of knowledge.

You asked whether they existed or not. You did not ask if they could actually perform mircales.

At 1/30/08 12:05 PM, zoolrule wrote: Can god create a stone that he cant lift?"

'All knowing'=/='Omnipotent' Or even a phyiscal entity for that matter.

I don't believe a word of creationsim anyway.

At 1/30/08 04:45 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:

At 1/29/08 04:19 PM, zoolrule wrote:

"Jesus, Abraham, David, Luke, Ishmael, Isaac. I think that's it."

Thats not what i was talking about, Maybe these people did exist. But all of the part with god and miracles, ITS ALL 100% BULLSHIT, All it is is Just a matter of statistics, and lack of knowledge.

You asked whether they existed or not. You did not ask if they could actually perform mircales.

Well, think of it this way. There was a man named Jesus. The odds of there NEVER being a man named Jesus is just silly, so I can with confidence say that there was a man named Jesus.

Instead, we need to talk about a specific Jesus. The Jesus of the Bible that did miracles. When people say that Jesus doesn't exist, they aren't talking about Jesuses in general, but that specific Jesus.

Thus, his miracles are connected to his existence.

At 1/30/08 04:47 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: 'All knowing'=/='Omnipotent' Or even a phyiscal entity for that matter.

So you didnt read what i wrote?
People change their catch of god, contradiction - excuse, contradiction - excuse, contradiction - excuse, contradiction - excuse, contradiction - excuse, never ends.
And that my friend, is the evolution of the fairytale named Creationism, today known as Theism.