Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Oct 2013 09:44 pm

One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist

Over 3,000 people looked at this thread on Friday, and gave the forum its best day ever in terms of visitors. It is an email chain where an atheist questions a Christian apologist after the apologist’s university lecture:

Made up evidence for God? [#1999]

Good reading.

1,326 Responses to “One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist”

  1. on 19 Nov 2013 at 7:55 pm 1.Christ Follower said …

    Christ The Lord all mighty, creator of heaven and earth and Jesus is real.(in my option). I wish even though I don’t know any of you people! Especially the ones who don’t believe that Jesus is real, I hope you some how will believe someday before your lifetime ends because I care about you, even if I don’t know you. You just need to believe in him. But blogging about Jesus saying that he is not real only makes it worse. I care about all of you and I am praying for all of you non believers. Just one Sunday morning get in your vehicle if you have one or bike or walk to a local Christian church and just sit or stand in that pew and just listen with all your heart and mind about what words and testimony that that priest or pastor is saying because he/she is a believer in Christ and if you want I bet my life on it that after that service, if you go up to them and ask them to help you get saved/have him come into your heart. Jesus and The Lord love and care about you, in the Christian bible in chapter John:16 it says ” For god so loved the world that he gave his ONE and Only Son for whoever believes in him shall not perish but have ever lasting life” God sent HIS ONE and ONLY son down to earth to save YOU from sin and Jesus sacrificed everything for us and when we beat him and nailed him to the cross without a care and died, He still loved and loves us and forgave us for what we did that day in Jerusalem. Jesus and The Lord love everyone of you even if you don’t believe in him he still loves you and watches over you, he’s right by you right now. He’s actually everywhere and just remember this song: Jesus loves me.

    Jesus loves me! This I know,
    For the Bible tells me so;
    Little ones to Him belong;
    They are weak, but He is strong.

    Refrain:
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    Yes, Jesus loves me!
    The Bible tells me so.

    Jesus loves me! This I know,
    As He loved so long ago,
    Taking children on His knee,
    Saying, “Let them come to Me.”

    Jesus loves me still today,
    Walking with me on my way,
    Wanting as a friend to give
    Light and love to all who live.

    Jesus loves me! He who died
    Heaven’s gate to open wide;
    He will wash away my sin,
    Let His little child come in.

    Jesus loves me! He will stay
    Close beside me all the way;
    Thou hast bled and died for me,
    I will henceforth live for Thee.

    I am praying for all of you

    Love,
    Maggie McDonald

  2. on 21 Nov 2013 at 11:54 pm 2.Angus and Alexis said …

    And of course, the random preacher arrives then leaves.

  3. on 26 Nov 2013 at 12:37 am 3.bill said …

    Imagine…you create path to perceived truth…you develop historical evidence…you seek followers…you promise conversion (sic)..you have well known leaders…you make your belief public…all you need is a punished martyr and you have Christianity without the millions who play out the deeds of helping humanity and play out the real message of Him who spoke these “isms”

  4. on 26 Nov 2013 at 12:42 am 4.bill said …

    Let me add the famous Stephen Hawkings is cared for by the believing English nurse..nuff said

  5. on 27 Nov 2013 at 4:27 pm 5.freddies_dead said …

    3.bill said …

    Imagine…you create path to perceived truth…you develop historical evidence…you seek followers…you promise conversion (sic)..you have well known leaders…you make your belief public…all you need is a punished martyr and you have Christianity without the millions who play out the deeds of helping humanity and play out the real message of Him who spoke these “isms”

    The most important thing we should take from this word salad is the very first word “Imagine”. Why? Because it’s all we can do when it comes to God(s). And why do we have to imagine them? Because they don’t actually exist.

    4.bill said …

    Let me add the famous Stephen Hawkings is cared for by the believing English nurse..nuff said

    Apart from the need for a citation can you give us any clue as to what this has to do with the question of God’s existence?

    In what way does Hawking possibly having a nurse who believes prove that whichever God you believe in exists bill?

  6. on 16 Dec 2013 at 3:14 am 6.Everyone said …

    Interesting post. We are suppose to believe the atheist student rendition of events that took place with this Christian professor. How honorable he chose not to release the professors name or an outside source to verify the claims.

    On a similar note, atheist hero Lawrence Krauss was recently busted in his debates with William Lane Craig for purposely misrepresenting a letter from Alexander Vilenkin in order to support a point. In other words he lied and hoped not to be discovered.

    Krauss was desperate since he had already been scorched by Craig in a debate at NC State. Of course for the atheist Krauss, his lies supported what he considers a greater good therefore it was OK. Typical tactics in the atheist world.

  7. on 16 Dec 2013 at 1:41 pm 7.alex said …

    “We are suppose to believe the atheist student rendition of events…”

    nope, you moron. nobody is asking you to do anything except present your god evidence. diversions don’t do shit for your god.

    “How honorable he chose not to release…”

    let’s say he’s criminal, you happy? how does this prove your god?

    “On a similar note, atheist hero Lawrence Krauss..”

    he ain’t my hero. where’s the hero list? how does this prove your god?

    “Krauss was desperate since he had already been scorched….”

    who cares? i burned myself yesterday and how does that prove your god?

    all this crap you keeping posting is the same ole tired shit. roll out the lies next. do it, hor.

  8. on 17 Dec 2013 at 1:40 am 8.Everyone said …

    “nobody is asking you to do anything”

    Oh Alexander! Silly Willy, the thread is about an atheist vs a Christian apologist.

    Such a simple little fella. Remember, seek help this Christmas season. This is the greatest gift you can give to yourself.

  9. on 10 Jan 2014 at 6:13 pm 9.Anonymous said …

    Your an Idiot

  10. on 12 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 10.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yes, we know “A” is an idiot.

    I think we solved that several years ago.

  11. on 12 Jan 2014 at 3:11 am 11.A said …

    “Your an Idiot”

    lol!!! Yes! You are mine! Lol!!

    Hilarious!

    Sorry I had to shut the blog down boys. I am just too busy to keep things going.

    Late

  12. on 12 Jan 2014 at 5:13 am 12.Angus and Alexis said …

    Come to think of it, what is the deal with this blog?
    Is it like…dead or something?

  13. on 13 Jan 2014 at 8:49 pm 13.DPK said …

    Dead indeed…. funny how once our friend the Asstrophysicist decided he was too busy… ALL the other theists just happened to disappear at the same time. LOL…… but he wasn’t sock puppeting!!

  14. on 14 Jan 2014 at 7:21 am 14.Angus and Alexis said …

    Well, i do believe there were a few non “A” theists here, but they left…

  15. on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:48 pm 15.alex said …

    Whywontgodhealamputees . org is available. I can fire it up. Anybody care to write articles?

  16. on 15 Jan 2014 at 3:10 am 16.Angus and Alexis said …

    I could.

    PM me on the WWGHA forum if you want to do so.

  17. on 16 Jan 2014 at 7:32 pm 17.40 Year Atheist said …

    Atheist take issue with the parody on Atheist arguments. It’s amazing how many Atheists are literalists despite their hatred of literalism. Nonetheless, I have responded with the following list regarding the Atheist thought process:
    1. Denial of intellectual responsibility for saying why they reject theist arguments.

    2. Constant and consistent use of rationalization to backfill their emotional conclusion which has no intellectual or evidentiary content.

    3. Backfill the intellectual and moral void they have created for themselves with visions of their own self-endowed elitism.

    4. Live a life of arrogance despite also living a life dependent upon logical fallacy, which is now deeply embedded in the worldview.

    5. Claim logic and evidence as the basis of their worldview, despite being based totally on emotional rejectionism and neediness.

    6. Evangelize, claiming that critical thinking means being a critical person, who criticizes everything except Materialism and Scientism and Leftism.

    7. Demand that government be beholden to their views, and only their views, exclusively (because they are so tolerant).

    8. Be vociferously offended at the mere sight of religious artifacts and activities which are not yet underground and are thus visually offensive. The FFRF has claimed to be made physically ill at the sight. BUT:

    9. Demand total tolerance for any possible amoral activity engaged in by the amoral/immoral. That’s because those activities are now morally acceptable, and religion is the only remaining immorality and cannot be tolerated unless it is underground and not available to be seen by impressionable children who might be corrupted. Media tolerance for sex and violence is fine; media attachment to the offensive morality of the Other cannot be tolerated, and is purged by consensus.

    10. Form and fund large organizations which attack small entities which display religious symbology, especially very small towns and school districts. Do not attack Los Angeles, it might win, and that would destroy the ability for future attacks on the Other.

    11. Claim that no one but an Atheist can understand Atheism.

    12. Claim that other Atheists are wrong; only you personally understand Atheism.

    13. Claim Atheism is not a religion.

    14. Form churches.

    15. Split into denominations due to dogma differences.

    16. Create an individual morality which fits the individual Atheist’s proclivity and thus is also volatile.

    17. Insist that Atheists are Good without God.

    18. Campaign against theism with billboard and bus sign attacks, claiming that the presence of religion is an attack on themselves, the Victims.

    19. Become the Saviors of mankind, as well as Victims. Classism is thus natural to the Atheist.

    20. Being the Saviors/Messiahs requires the designation of classes of Victims and Oppressors; the government is the perfect place to apply Messiahism, since it has the ability to attack the Oppressors and keep the Victims on the plantations

  18. on 17 Jan 2014 at 3:35 am 18.Angus and Alexis said …

    Ohh no, hes posting that stupid shit again.

  19. on 17 Jan 2014 at 3:35 pm 19.freddies_dead said …

    20 assertions suggesting atheists can’t back up their worldview with an argument and yet there’s not a single argument to back any of those assertions up. The hypocrisy, it burns.

  20. on 17 Jan 2014 at 5:21 pm 20.DPK said …

    I was about to write a point by point answer to 40years mind boggling list of false statements, twisted logic, and outright lies… and then thought, “what’s the point?” He isn’t going to defend them, or engage in any actual debate. So the only reply really necessary is this:
    What a bunch of bullshit.

  21. on 21 Jan 2014 at 4:23 pm 21.A said …

    40 YA I love the list but is it complete? I will need to ponder.

    We need to add this incorrigible need to form a religion in order to proclaim no God exists. That could #21. Will they be forming churches to proclaim that Santa and Leprechauns do mo exist?….the S&L church? Lol!!!!!

  22. on 21 Jan 2014 at 9:23 pm 22.DPK said …

    A far more interesting topic would be why theists like A/40 have such an intense pathological need to lie about atheists and what atheism actually is. Like a dog looking at a tv remote, trying to think it must be a bone, because they can’t think any other way.

  23. on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:40 pm 23.alex said …

    “Will they be forming churches to proclaim that Santa and Leprechauns do mo exist?….the S&L church? Lol!!!!!”

    does the african bushman go to a church? you, a dumb motherfucker, ya?

  24. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:12 am 24.the messenger said …

    23.alex, I have provided proof of GOD many times.

    You are an idiot.

  25. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:14 am 25.the messenger said …

    Alex, tell me, what is so evil about the bible?

    The bible teaches love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, heart, integrity, and loyalty.

    HOW IS THIS BAD?

    The verses regarding stoning are metaphorical. Jesus proved that in the new testament, when he prevented a woman from getting stoned. Jesus said that he will give his stone(the right to execute a person) to the first person who tells him he has never sinned. Jesus proved that only a person who has never sinned is allowed to literally stone another person, and since every human in history has sinned at least once, no human is allowed to literally stone another human. GOD is the only one that has never sinned, therefore GOD is the only person that can literally stone someone.

    If you can disprove my claim, provide evidence.

    Here is proof of GOD. The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Miracle of the Sun. It was witnessed by 30,000 to 100,000 people(believers and nonbelievers).

    Dr. Almeida Garrett (Professor of Natural Sciences at Coimbra University) witness the event and stated the following:(The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round on itself in a mad whirl, when suddenly a clamor was heard from all the people. The sun, whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.”)

    P.S., none of the people at the site of the miracle denied that it happened.

  26. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:25 am 26.the messenger said …

    7.alex, atheists have a long history of being murderers and genocidal maniacs. I would never put one in charge of a country, otherwise it would end up like north Korea or Nazi Germany.

  27. on 22 Jan 2014 at 1:27 am 27.the messenger said …

    One or two sins will not make a person become a non christian. I stated the following (To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.).
    Christians and jews follow GOD’s laws to the best of their ability. Humans do not have the ability to overcome sin all the time, ok. When a Christian or a jew sins, they try to seek atonement for their actions. A non Christian or non jew does not try to seek atonement.

  28. on 22 Jan 2014 at 3:04 am 28.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The bible teaches love, humility, kindness, forgiveness, compassion, heart, integrity, and loyalty.”

    It also teaches bigotry, hate, murder, genocide, rape, slavery, polygamy and stoning.

    Do not try to slither away from the stoning verses, absolute is absolute.

    You also falsely compare atheists with men like hitler (who was a christian ironically), and Kin Jong Un.

    You also use the false concept of sin, which has no backing.

    Actually, you don’t back anything up.

  29. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:16 am 29.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, the bible does not teach bigotry, hate towards others, genocide, rape, slavery, or literal stoning.

    The bible states that we must love all people, even our enemies.Matthew 5:43-48

    It also says that murder(also genocide) is not allowed.Exodus 20:12-13.

    Many verses speak against rape. None of the passages teach or support rape.

    The stoning is not literal. That is proved in John 8:1-11.

    lastly, are you saying that Stalin is not an atheist? you know nothing about history do you.

  30. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:21 am 30.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, you must be high or drunk, or insane. Kin Jong Un is an atheist, you ridiculous, moronic, inane idiot.

  31. on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:40 am 31.the messenger said …

    28.Angus and Alexis, if we remove GOD from our society we will be left with nothing but murderous killer Atheist rulers, such as these following examples that lack generosity, compassion, kindness, and love.

    Gracchus Babeuf
    Karl Marx
    Friedrich Engels
    Peter Kropotkin
    Rosa Luxemburg
    Karl Liebknecht
    Antonio Gramsci
    Vladimir Lenin
    Leon Trotsky
    Joseph Stalin
    Leonid Brezhnev
    Kim Il-Sung
    Mao Zedong
    Deng Xiaoping
    Ho Chi Minh
    Palmiro Togliatti
    Josip Broz Tito
    Fidel Castro
    Che Guevara

  32. on 23 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 32.the messenger said …

    Slavery is allowed in the bible, but only in the most desperate situations. Also the laws dictate that slaves must be treated like human beings, not property. And they must be treated well, and fairly.

  33. on 23 Jan 2014 at 4:10 am 33.Angus and Alexis said …

    “28.Angus and Alexis, the bible does not teach bigotry, hate towards others, genocide, rape, slavery, or literal stoning.”

    Amazing, you lied, enjoy hell.
    Remember homosexuals? The group you are brain washed into being bigoted against?

    “atheists have a long history of being murderers and genocidal maniacs. I would never put one in charge of a country, otherwise it would end up like north Korea or Nazi Germany.”

    What about Sweden? Agnostic Atheist leader, and best healthcare in the world.

    Or Australia? No Nazi’s here.

    “28.Angus and Alexis, you must be high or drunk, or insane. Kin Jong Un is an atheist, you ridiculous, moronic, inane idiot.”

    Yes, i know Kim Jong Un is an atheist, what you fail to realize is that comparing him to Atheism itself is a false comparison.

    “When a Christian or a jew sins, they try to seek atonement for their actions. A non Christian or non jew does not try to seek atonement.”

    That would be because sin does not exist.
    It is a man made concept to scare people into religion.

    “(To be a christian you must follow GOD’s laws to the best of your ability, therefore a rapist is not a christian because rape is against GOD’s laws.).”

    And there are plenty of Christians out there who would use the redemption card. So who is correct?

    “Slavery is allowed in the bible, but only in the most desperate situations. Also the laws dictate that slaves must be treated like human beings, not property. And they must be treated well, and fairly.”

    What an utter lie.
    The bible states no such thing.
    It does however state that you are allowed to beat your slave, just the the brink of death, as to not kill him.
    You can do so as much as you want.

    “Angus and Alexis, if we remove GOD from our society we will be left with nothing but murderous killer Atheist rulers, such as these following examples that lack generosity, compassion, kindness, and love.”

    Alas, global percentages have proven that the less religion there is in a country, the less crime, rape, teenage pregnancies, and discrimination there is.

  34. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:22 pm 34.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, do you have any brains at all, you idiotic nincompoop.

    The bible does not contain a single verse that is hateful towards gay people.

    Leviticus 18 is not against gay people, ok. It applies to gay and straight people. lust causes people to become child molesters, hookers, rapists, and many other bad things. In order to reduce the amount of lust in our lives we must only use sex for reproduction, and not for lust. Only a man and a woman can reproduce by having sex, therefore people of the same gender are not allowed to have sex with each other.

  35. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 35.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, there is more than one leader in Sweden and Australia, and some of them are Christians. With out them those countries would be similar to stalin’s Russia. I am very certain of that.

  36. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:28 pm 36.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, I was not comparing kim jong un to atheism, I was comparing him to other atheists. That is a good comparison.

  37. on 23 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 37.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, a sin is a crime against GOD’s laws, and it does exist.

    It was not made up by humans, and it is not meant to scare people. GOD forgives us and loves us, therefore we should try to avoid sin but not because of fear but because of our love for GOD.

  38. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:22 am 38.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, there is no such thing as a redemption card. Redemption is a hard process. Getting forgiveness from GOD is an easy thing because he is very kind.

  39. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:32 am 39.Angus and Alexis said …

    “The bible does not contain a single verse that is hateful towards gay people.
    Leviticus 18 is not against gay people, ok. It applies to gay and straight people.”

    Messenger, heterosexual people, by definition, cannot have sex with the opposite sex.
    Thus is is bigoted against gays.

  40. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 40.Angus and Alexis said …

    “lust causes people to become child molesters, hookers, rapists, and many other bad things.”

    What a lie.
    List a source for this now.

    “In order to reduce the amount of lust in our lives we must only use sex for reproduction, and not for lust.”

    Sex has more purposes than reproduction, by doing what you suggest, you are going against nature.

    “Only a man and a woman can reproduce by having sex, therefore people of the same gender are not allowed to have sex with each other.”

    And that would be bigotry.
    And discrimination.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, there is more than one leader in Sweden and Australia, and some of them are Christians. With out them those countries would be similar to stalin’s Russia. I am very certain of that.”

    Perhaps you should think again.
    Ever since Australia got some theistic leaders (mainly Catholics, research Tony Abbot.) everything has gone to shit.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, I was not comparing kim jong un to atheism, I was comparing him to other atheists. That is a good comparison.”

    By comparing all atheists to Kim Jong, you are effectively comparing all of atheism to him.

    The only criteria of “atheist” is the lack of a belief in a deity.
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    “33.Angus and Alexis, a sin is a crime against GOD’s laws, and it does exist.”

    Prove it then.
    Otherwise it can be dismissed.

    “It was not made up by humans, and it is not meant to scare people. GOD forgives us and loves us, therefore we should try to avoid sin but not because of fear but because of our love for GOD.”

    So many claims, so little evidence.

  41. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 41.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, Jesus taught that masters of servants/slaves must be humble and treat their servants/slaves as equals and with respect and love in John 13:1-17.

  42. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:34 am 42.Angus and Alexis said …

    Also, messenger, it appears your comments piss off the spam detector, please work on that.

    It makes replying particularly hard.

  43. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:41 am 43.the messenger said …

    39.Angus and Alexis, you obviously do not know the definition of homosexual. The definition of Homosexual has nothing to do with who the person has or doesn’t have sex with.

    Here is he definition of homosexual.

  44. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:44 am 44.the messenger said …

    33.Angus and Alexis, you idiot.

    The USSR had a very low percentage of religious people, and there was genocide, murder, rape, and discrimination.

    Come back when you get some common sense.

  45. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:49 am 45.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, are you saying that lust is not the motive of rapists, child molesters, and hookers?

    If lust is not their motive please tell me what it is.

    Go ahead, answer if you can.

  46. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:55 am 46.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, humans are naturally greedy and self centered. Sometimes natural desires are bad, even though they are natural tendencies.

  47. on 24 Jan 2014 at 1:59 am 47.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, lust is bad, and we must reduce it by limiting sex to only reproduction.

    Only people of opposite genders can reproduce together, therefore sex with the same gender would only be for lust and is therefore bad.

  48. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:05 am 48.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, I said I was comparing kim jong un to SOME ATHEISTS, NOT ALL ATHEISTS.

    You apparently have the reading level of a preschooler. A preschooler that need a time out for his stupidity and arrogance.

  49. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:11 am 49.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, tell me, how did things go to S##t after Christians gained power there?

    Provide actual proof. Do not think to hard about it, you might strain you brain when you think to hard.

  50. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:14 am 50.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, it is written in the bible that satan made sin when he tempted adam and eve.

  51. on 24 Jan 2014 at 2:17 am 51.the messenger said …

    40.Angus and Alexis, here is proof that sin is a crime against GOD’s laws.

    Here is the oxford dictionary definition.

    (an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law)

    As you can see, sin is a crime against GOD’s laws.

  52. on 24 Jan 2014 at 5:49 am 52.Angus and Alexis said …

    You know what?

    Fuck off messenger.

    I tried to talk some sense into you.

    I tried to debate fairly.

    But all you do is shit on the chess board and run away.

  53. on 24 Jan 2014 at 3:27 pm 53.alex said …

    yeah, these dumbass theists love god/heaven so much that they wear seatbelts, take medicine, exercise and shit. you think god would hold it against them if they didn’t do all this shit and they happen to die?

    god: you’re going to hell, xtian motherfucker! even though you believed in me and i have forgiven your sins, you’re doomed to everlasting torture because you didn’t get your colonoscopy! har!

    messenger (god’s personal rep): but, but, hell, it’s really not permanent. you just go for a little bit….

  54. on 24 Jan 2014 at 7:08 pm 54.A said …

    Mess,

    Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed……AGAIN!…….as contradictory, hypocritical and just ignorant of all subject matters outside of Tulips! Lol!!

    I read a post or two and just laughed at his/her comedy of reasoning! Thanks Mess!

  55. on 24 Jan 2014 at 8:32 pm 55.alex said …

    “Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed”

    and this legitimizes allah?

  56. on 25 Jan 2014 at 3:29 am 56.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Great Job! The Agnus Butterfly has been exposed……AGAIN!…….as contradictory, hypocritical and just ignorant of all subject matters outside of Tulips! Lol!!”

    The usernames I have used here are:
    Xcanthean Zeno
    Zeno
    Fluttershy
    Lesbian carwasher

    And finally, Angus and Alexis.

    So i do not see your point.

  57. on 26 Jan 2014 at 4:24 pm 57.alex said …

    allah shows up and proclaims:

    “all you xtians are wrong, coz i’m the real deal!”

    what would messenger do?

  58. on 26 Jan 2014 at 4:40 pm 58.Angus and Alexis said …

    “what would messenger do?”

    Suck his D*** for access?

  59. on 26 Jan 2014 at 5:30 pm 59.DPK said …

    Hahaha…. Messenger, no doubt, would argue with him that he was wrong, and that Jesus was on his way to kick his blasphemous ass!

  60. on 26 Jan 2014 at 10:18 pm 60.alex said …

    messenger would start acting immoral because his divine guidance would have been invalidated.

    without a brain, messenger would be lost. what a moron.

  61. on 27 Jan 2014 at 5:01 am 61.Angus and Alexis said …

    Ahh, right.

    I forgot that messenger would apparently start raping and murdering if a two thousand year old, out-dated, unscientific book written by illiterate goat herders, was found to be fictional.

  62. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:50 pm 62.the messenger said …

    58.Angus and Alexis, I had to take a break from your stupidity. It was polluting the air.

  63. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:52 pm 63.the messenger said …

    59.DPK, Jesus did not come to only condemn, but also to forgive.

  64. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:56 pm 64.the messenger said …

    60.alex, so far you have yet to actually disprove a single thing in the bible.

    You have no brain and no common sense either.

  65. on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:59 pm 65.the messenger said …

    60.alex, without GOD there is no morality.

    You still haven’t disproven any part of the bible.

    You do not have a brain, and I am starting to think that you do not have a soul either, because you are so oblivious to the truth and are so hateful.

    I pray for you.

  66. on 27 Jan 2014 at 11:52 pm 66.alex said …

    “You have no brain and no common sense either.”

    wrong, motherfucker. i can easily be convinced if allah, yaweh, or budda were to show up and show their godness. you on the otherhand, can’t even contemplate that allah could exist, could you? your so called common sense says that rape can be paid off? you don’t even try to deny it or attempt to backtrack. if case readers forget, you believe that the rapist can get off by marrying the victim.

    “Jesus did not come to only condemn, but also to forgive.”

    wrong again. if jesus existed, there would overwhelming, preponderous evidence that he existed. instead moron motherfuckers, like you, make up bullshit proofs to shore up his existence.

    “You still haven’t disproven any part of the bible”

    wrongest yet. an omniscient god can’t create humans with a choice because the same bullshit god already knows the outcome. how the fuck is that even a choice? god doesn’t know? then omniscient he aint.

    “without GOD there is no morality”

    if THE Creator, who didn’t happen to be a god, were to show up, would you lose your morals?

    readers, this is old shit. messenger thinks that the burden of proof is on the non-believer. yeti nonbelievers must disprove bigfoot or otherwise bigfoot is real. ufos are real unless disproven.

    since allah and yahweh are both mutually exclusive, monotheistic gods, they cannot both exist. but because they cannot be disproven, then both gods must exist. how can this be?

    i need to have faith? in what? even if you hedge, you cannot believe in both. quit the damn searching, yearning shit. the answer is right in front of you. there are NO gods.

    morals you say? give me the morality test, you dumb motherfucker. ask me (or anybody else), what i would say if a rapist offered to marry the victim in lieu of a rape conviction.

    messenger, you a shit motherfucker.

  67. on 28 Jan 2014 at 12:35 am 67.the messenger said …

    66.alex, you are inane.

    Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD, but the muslim view of GOD is wrong.

    Buddha is not recognized as a GOD in Buddhism or any other religion, you nincompoop.

  68. on 28 Jan 2014 at 12:58 am 68.alex said …

    “Allah and Yahweh are the same GOD, but the muslim view of GOD is wrong.”

    ok, that reconciles both gods, but unfortunately, most xtians don’t believe your filthy shit. the muslim viewpoint is equally bullshitty as your belief.

    let’s see if you really believe your shit. post a muslim prayer and in it, refer to allah. it won’t prove it anything, but i just want to see.

  69. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:24 am 69.the messenger said …

    68.alex, I already said that islam is a misinterpretation of GOD and his message. Islam is a religion of hate, and most of it’s prayers are not holy, therefore I will never say a muslim prayer.

  70. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:36 am 70.the messenger said …

    66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Flavius Josephus(a jewish historian from 37 C.E. that wrote about Jesus.

    both of these people are non christians and yet they claim that Jesus does exist.

  71. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:40 am 71.the messenger said …

    66.alex, is it moral to cuss?

    There’s a moral test for you.

  72. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:51 am 72.the messenger said …

    66.alex, your an idiot.

    GOD can be all knowing and still give humans a choice.

    A dog owner knows that if his dog is hungry, he knows that the dog will eat a piece of dog food if he puts it in front of him. The owner knows in advance that the dog will eat the dog food. That does not mean that the owner is taking away the dog’s free will, it simply means that the owner is very fimiliar with the dog’s behavior and how it reacts to certain things.

    GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will. similar to the dog/owner story above.

  73. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:35 am 73.alex said …

    “therefore I will never say a muslim prayer.”

    ok, dumbass. don’t call it a muslim prayer. since you said allah and yahweh are the same, why don’t you just pray to allah in your xtian way?

    “66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.”

    oooh, a very significant person this hesus is and you overwhelm me with your two questionable proofs?

    “66.alex, is it moral to cuss?”

    no it’s not and i fail, just like you when you cuss. the difference between me and you is that i don’t use the bullshit original sin and even more bullshit redemption. i curse because it’s my reaction to morons like you. call it disdain. again, it’s not moral and i don’t need a book.

    “GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will.”

    this is proof that you’re a stoopid, dumbass motherfucker. how is it free will when the outcome is already known? oops, i forget. you’re a dumbass.

    need more? your rapist stance that the perp can get off by marrying the victim. you wonder why the rest of your homies don’t side with you on that?

    ciao, motherfucker.

  74. on 28 Jan 2014 at 5:00 am 74.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger.

    Understand that in order to use the bible, you must prove that the bible is factual.

    Otherwise every argument made from it can be discarded.

    So i ask of you, prove your claims, or concede.

  75. on 28 Jan 2014 at 2:01 pm 75.DPK said …

    No messenger, the owner does not “know” the dog will eat the food. He thinks it most likely will, but if he ” knows” it that means certainty, and he cannot be certain he dog will eat the food, now, tomorrow, or next week. The dog may be sick and not interested, the dog may be distracted… “Squirrel”… IF owner in fact KNOWS that the dog will eat the good, then the dog in fact would be powerless to not do so, because in not doing so, he would invalidate the owners ” knowledge”.

    To you god and human example, if tomorrow I can choose to do “x” or “y”, and god knows that I will do x, is there ANY conceivable scenario in which I will do y? No, because IF I did y, then god did in fact not “know” I would do x.
    Therefore, I do not in fact have any possibility of choosing y. My free will is an illusion, and I am nothing more than an puppet making choices that have already been determined for me. I would then have no will, and no responsibility for my actions, since I have no choice in the matter.
    If, on the other hand, I am indeed free to choose, then god CANNOT know what I will do.

  76. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:36 pm 76.A said …

    Lol!!! Dippy and his simpleton analysis……sigh

    God knowing what you will inevitably choose does not invalidate your choice. You still have the choice to make.

    You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)

  77. on 28 Jan 2014 at 3:44 pm 77.Angus and Alexis said …

    “You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)”

    If someone has foreknowledge, or simply knowledge of an event happening, the person related to the event has no choice in the matter.

    Thus IS a puppet.

  78. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:17 pm 78.freddies_dead said …

    72.the messenger said …

    66.alex, here is proof that Jesus exists.

    The roman historian, Tacitus, recorded the following event. “Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius”

    Flavius Josephus(a jewish historian from 37 C.E. that wrote about Jesus.

    both of these people are non christians and yet they claim that Jesus does exist.

    The reference in Josephus is widely understood to be a forgery. The single paragraph that mentions Jesus didn’t show up until centuries after Josephus died and was so badly constructed that almost all scholars agree it was bullshit.

    The validity of the writings attributed to Tacitus is similarly flimsy. The originals were written in the 2nd century but none of the original documents exist – they’re all copies of copies of copies. None of the early Christian writers such as Eusebius and Tertullian mention the passage from Tacitus and the wording used is almost certainly from a later time.

    Your “proof” is nothing but early Christian forgery.

  79. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:22 pm 79.freddies_dead said …

    78.A said …

    Lol!!! Dippy and his simpleton analysis……sigh

    God knowing what you will inevitably choose does not invalidate your choice. You still have the choice to make.

    You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)

    Omniscience by itself does not force your hand, the choice may very well be free despite the omniscient entity already knowing what choice you will make.

    So no, it’s not God’s foreknowledge that condemns you to be a mere puppet. It’s the fact that God has a plan which does that. On the Christian worldview God has a plan to bring about His own glory. The reason God knows exactly what you will do is because that’s what He planned you would do and because He’s God you have no choice but to comply. There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent.

  80. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:31 pm 80.freddies_dead said …

    79.Angus and Alexis said …

    “You are a puppet, but not due to God’s foreknowledge :)”

    If someone has foreknowledge, or simply knowledge of an event happening, the person related to the event has no choice in the matter.

    Thus IS a puppet.

    Not quite. That an omniscient entity knows what choice you will make isn’t necessarily what causes you to make that choice. It’s quite possible that you’re making that choice freely and the omniscient entity simply knows ahead of time what free choice you will make. I know it’s not entirely intuitive but it does actually make sense when you really think about it.

    The kicker here of course is that the omniscient entity – the Christian God – is said to have a plan.

    The Christian God is said to have planned everything to bring about His glory – and it’s that plan that pisses all over the concept of free will. You cannot possible do something that contradicts the will of the Christian God and He wills that you carry out His plan. Do what you’re told puppet. No matter that His plan for you includes an eternity of suffering, it’s the only way that an omnimax deity can bring about their glory.

    Lol, such absurdity … but exactly what we expect from a worldview that rests on the concept that “wishing makes it so”.

  81. on 28 Jan 2014 at 4:54 pm 81.Angus and Alexis said …

    “That an omniscient entity knows what choice you will make isn’t necessarily what causes you to make that choice. It’s quite possible that you’re making that choice freely and the omniscient entity simply knows ahead of time what free choice you will make.”

    Having absolute knowledge of the future implies that it is set in stone, or, to rename it, planned.

    Thus having knowledge of the future makes no choice in the matter.

  82. on 28 Jan 2014 at 5:34 pm 82.A said …

    “There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent”

    Well spoken…..well stated but again completely wrong. An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice……..which is WHY the deity is omnipotent! Lol!!

    Seriously!, you think an omnipotent can’t follow through on a plan regardless of the choice of a man?

    The liberal part of atheists will not allow them to see an omnipotent being who does not strong-arm his creation into obedience. That’s understandable.

  83. on 28 Jan 2014 at 7:29 pm 83.DPK said …

    Haha.. Spoken like the completely brain washed idiot you are.
    If your omniscient god knows that tomorrow I will, say, murder you by bludgeoning you with a sack of bibles… Is there in fact any possible scenario in which I do not bludgeon you with the bibles?
    If there is, then your gods perfect knowledge is incorrect… Fail.
    If there is not, then I have no choice in the matter but to do the deed… Also fail.

    Sorry A, you can try your Jedi mind tricks on the weak minded, but you argument is simply bullshit. Lol

  84. on 28 Jan 2014 at 8:03 pm 84.alex said …

    “An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice”

    so basically he don’t know shit… fucking double talk bullshit. see, if you say god doesn’t know what is to pass, it’s more believable, doesn’t it, but then it wouldn’t be godlike, would it?

  85. on 28 Jan 2014 at 8:09 pm 85.DPK said …

    “An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice”

    Uh.. No.
    If the omnipotent being knows what will occur, you cannot do anything but what he either knows, or has determined. No way around it, double talk not withstanding. If your actions are predetermined, the idea of free will is only an illusion.
    If god knows I will do x, even though it may seem to me I can do y, I in fact cannot.

    Sorry A, epic fail again. Give up.

  86. on 28 Jan 2014 at 9:14 pm 86.A said …

    Dippy,

    Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken. This is obviously above your understanding. You will have to be able to think above a child-later like level.

  87. on 28 Jan 2014 at 9:19 pm 87.alex said …

    “Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken.”

    well, good for you, you dumb motherfucker. you think freddy is our messenger? the only common atheist denominator is our nonbelief. if freddy is a republican, you think all atheists are?

    dumbass.

  88. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:23 pm 88.the messenger said …

    73.alex, “just like you when you cuss”.

    When have I cussed on this site?

    You idiot.

  89. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 89.the messenger said …

    73.alex, how are those proofs questionable?

    The majority of historians accept the evidence that I presented, why don’t you?

  90. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:27 pm 90.the messenger said …

    73.alex, if a person does something bad he or she should try to redeem themselves.

    What is so wrong about that?

  91. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 91.the messenger said …

    73.alex, here is the definition of free will.

    (the ability to act at one’s own discretion.)

    GOD knows our decisions before we make them because he is highly familiar with us.

    Regardless of that, we still choose, because GOD is not forcing us to do anything, he simply concludes what our decisions will be due to his knowledge of us and how we react to certain things.

  92. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:35 pm 92.the messenger said …

    74.Angus and Alexis, if GOD exists then so does the bible, and I have already given you proof many times.

  93. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:38 pm 93.the messenger said …

    75.DPK, GOD is so familiar with all of our details that he already knows, without a doubt, how we will react to a certain thing and therefore he knows what decisions will be during a certain situation.

  94. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:40 pm 94.alex said …

    “When have I cussed on this site?”

    this is why you’re the blog shitfuck. you formulated the question “is it moral to curse?”. regardless whether you curse or not, it would be immoral for anyone (atheist or xtian or muslim or bushman included) to curse. given that, your biblical morality test has failed, you dumbass.

    “The majority of historians accept the evidence that I presented, why don’t you?”

    because it’s bullshit. just because you say that the majority do, it’s not true. care to prove it, you dumb motherfucker? just like the weapons of mass destruction, the onus is on the person that makes the assertion. just like leprechauns, your hesus is a figment, unless of course you got proof?seeing the image of hesus on a dog’s ass doesn’t count.

    “if a person does something bad he or she should try to redeem themselves.
    What is so wrong about that?”

    redeem themselves using a bullshit redeemer that’s what. go fuck yourself and after you’re done, go pray, you asshole.

  95. on 28 Jan 2014 at 10:43 pm 95.alex said …

    “Regardless of that, we still choose, because GOD is not forcing us to do anything, he simply concludes what our decisions will be due to his knowledge of us and how we react to certain things.”

    same concept as to why god sometimes answers prayers and sometimes not. it’s bullshit double talk.

    god gave us free will to fly with wings coming out of our ass, but we choose not too? what a crock. go fuck yourself, mess motherfucker.

  96. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:02 am 96.the messenger said …

    94.alex, I thought that you were claiming that I had cussed.

    You are an idiot. and still cussing too.

  97. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:06 am 97.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, are you nuts? The majority of historians do accept Tacitus’s record of Jesus.

    Joshepheus’s record is about half and half. Some believe that it is true and some do not.

    You are insane.

  98. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:11 am 98.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, tell me, how do you know that Tacitus’s record wording is from another time period?

    I see not difference in the wording.

  99. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:21 am 99.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, Louis Feldman( the non Christian biblical scholar ) stated that “few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus’ reference to Jesus”

    You lied about most scholars opposing it.

  100. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:33 am 100.the messenger said …

    94.alex, the bible states that if we hurt or damage a person’s property or steal we must redeem our selves by paying them back fully for the damages.

    If we are bad to a person, we must redeem our selves by apologizing and asking that person and GOD for forgiveness. The bible says that.

    Tell me, what is wrong about that? P.S., what is the redeemer you are referring to? Redemption is earned through hard work, it is not something that you can get from a pass or a certain phrase.

  101. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:18 am 101.alex said …

    “what is the redeemer you are referring to?”

    you are a fucking, shitass troll. the redeemer is the emmer with the crimson hue, you clueless fuck.

  102. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:39 am 102.the messenger said …

    101.alex, emmer is a kind of weat, and crimson is a silver color. So silver weat is a redeemer?

    ARE YOU BRAINLESS?

  103. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:25 am 103.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, you have never posted valid proof of god.

    You may think it is valid, other theists may agree.

    But the fact still stands that it is not valid according to reality.

    And again, you are yet to prove that the bible is factual.

    Proving that a god exists does not prove the bible.

    The god could be associated to islam, hinduism, pastafarianism, or any other religion.

  104. on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:59 am 104.freddies_dead said …

    83.Angus and Alexis said …

    Having absolute knowledge of the future implies that it is set in stone, or, to rename it, planned.

    Thus having knowledge of the future makes no choice in the matter.

    Having knowledge of the future (either absolute or not) does not mean that the one who knows planned that future. It is possible that an entity could know what you’re going to do but not be the cause of your choice. It’s true you won’t do anything other than what they know but it’s not their knowing that’s causing you to make that choice.

    Causation is the issue here. Knowing what you will choose isn’t the same as causing you to make that choice. That’s why God’s plan is important. It’s that plan that is the cause of your choice. It’s that plan that makes you a robot. It’s that plan that shows the Christian concepts of ‘sin’ and ‘free-will’ are absurdities.

  105. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:00 pm 105.freddies_dead said …

    84.A said …

    “There’s no way you could do other than what God wills – otherwise He wouldn’t be omnipotent”

    Well spoken…..well stated but again completely wrong.

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God? I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do? This is what you are claiming here and, man, apart from being nonsense, it makes your God look particularly weak.

    An omnipotent being can have a plan but allow you to make your own choice……

    How? If the omnipotent being plans that I will do something and it’s omniscience means it knows that I will do it, just how can I do something different?

    ..which is WHY the deity is omnipotent! Lol!!

    Seriously!, you think an omnipotent can’t follow through on a plan regardless of the choice of a man?

    This is the point. There is no choice. Your God has the plan and His omnipotence means I can’t do anything other than what He knows I will do. The mental gymnastics you’re having to go through here to try and cram free-will into your worldview are hilarious.

    The liberal part of atheists will not allow them to see an omnipotent being who does not strong-arm his creation into obedience. That’s understandable.

    No it’s plain old logic that shows that you can’t do something other than what an omnipotent and omniscient being has planned, but it’s understandable that you don’t recognise this as your grasp on logic is tenuous at best.

  106. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:01 pm 106.freddies_dead said …

    88.A said …

    Dippy,

    Sorry but Frederick and I have spoken.

    Lol, and you disagreed with what I said.

    This is obviously above your understanding. You will have to be able to think above a child-later like level.

    This is the pot calling the kettle black.

  107. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:01 pm 107.freddies_dead said …

    99.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, are you nuts? The majority of historians do accept Tacitus’s record of Jesus.

    No they don’t.

    Joshepheus’s record is about half and half. Some believe that it is true and some do not.

    Liar. Pretty much everyone accepts that it’s a blatant forgery. No-one with any credibility would claim otherwise.

    You are insane.

    Coming from you I’ll take that as a compliment.

  108. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:02 pm 108.freddies_dead said …

    100.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, tell me, how do you know that Tacitus’s record wording is from another time period?

    Because the terminology he used doesn’t fit with the time period it is alleged to have been written.

    I see not difference in the wording.

    Of course you don’t because you’re an idiot.

  109. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:03 pm 109.freddies_dead said …

    101.the messenger said …

    78.freddies_dead, Louis Feldman( the non Christian biblical scholar ) stated that “few have doubted the genuineness of Josephus’ reference to Jesus”

    The Jewish scholar Louis Feldman you say? Because he has no vested interest in saying Jesus existed. Lol. Earl Doherty and Dorothy Murdock disagree.

    You lied about most scholars opposing it.

    Not really, no.

  110. on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:05 pm 110.freddies_dead said …

    104.the messenger said …

    …crimson is a silver color…

    Crimson is what now? And you have the nerve to call others “brainless”?

  111. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:45 pm 111.DPK said …

    “Having knowledge of the future (either absolute or not) does not mean that the one who knows planned that future. It is possible that an entity could know what you’re going to do but not be the cause of your choice. ”

    This is true, but the end result is the same. Foerknowledge implies certainty, certainity negates any other options. It could be that Zeus determined that tomorrow I will do action Y, and Yahweh only “knows” it through his omniscience. No matter, I cannot choose X instead because the Yahweh would be wrong, which is impossible.

    A considers this childlike reasoning, and his adult, mature reasoning is “because it’s magic”. Lol. Here is a mockery of my critical thinking skills from an individual who believes there is an invisible man who lives in the sky, who listens to his thoughts, and who is going to grant him an eternal life in a magical kingdom.
    The irony is mind boggling.

  112. on 29 Jan 2014 at 1:55 pm 112.Angus and Alexis said …

    Freddies_dead said…
    “Causation is the issue here. Knowing what you will choose isn’t the same as causing you to make that choice.”

    I must disagree, both have the same result, its just that one is an illusion of choice, and the other is simply no choice.

    If i know everything, and lets say for example, you will have pancakes tomorrow, you have no choice in the matter.

    Because I know what will happen, it is set in stone, and nothing you can do will stop that from happening, even if i told you not to eat pancakes.

    See the illusion of choice?

  113. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:00 pm 113.A said …

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God?”

    Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!

    ” I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do?”

    No!,that’s called omniscience silly! Stay with me here. God is not an atheist on a power trip. He will allow you to make bad chooses but still have the foreknowledge you will make them. Really a simple concept.

    The conspiracy theorist so tickle me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain? Three were put to death and one was exiled. Yes! I can see why they would make Jesus up! lol!!!!!!

  114. on 29 Jan 2014 at 2:51 pm 114.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!”

    You moron, if one goes against the will of an omnipotent being, then the being is no longer omnipotent.

  115. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:08 pm 115.DPK said …

    And if one is able to do something that an omniscient being already knows you will do, then that being is not omniscient.
    I believe A has become so open minded in regards to his magical god that his brains have fallen out.

    Answer the simple queston A… If your god knows that tomorrow I will do “x”, is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”? Yes, or no?

  116. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:34 pm 116.A said …

    “if one is able to do something that an omniscient being already knows you will do, then that being is not omniscient.”

    What??

    lol!!!!!! Wow! You guys don’t even try to hide your ignorance.

    ok….schools in session…..

    If an omnipotent being decides to give you free will an make your own choice has he acted in accordance with his omniscience and omnipotence?

    hint…..

    Yes

    He knows what you will choose.
    He gives you the free will to choose.

    Notice above the action words known as verbs taken by the deity exercising authority.

    lol!!!!!!!!!

  117. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:44 pm 117.freddies_dead said …

    113.DPK said …

    114.Angus and Alexis said …

    I get your points. The end result, i.e. the choice that you make, is the same, but it’s the cause, not the result, that is the issue here IMO.

    Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not? Only if the God has a plan do you actually have no choice. If the omniscient entity hasn’t foreordained that you will do something the fact that you go ahead and do what it knows you’ll do isn’t the fault of the omniscient entity – it’s something else that has caused you to make that choice.

    Of course this is all just semantics really. Christians aren’t proposing a God who is simply omniscient and hasn’t planned everything in advance. Oh no, their God has a plan and it is that plan that totally removes free-will from the equation. Which makes it all the more amusing when they claim that their God can give them free-will.

  118. on 29 Jan 2014 at 3:57 pm 118.freddies_dead said …

    115.A said …

    So I can go against the will of an omnipotent God?”

    Yes! Its called freewill silly…..sigh!

    What’s silly here is your claim. If I can go against God’s will then His will isn’t absolute. Wave goodbye to omnipotence.

    ” I can do something an omniscient God doesn’t know I’m going to do?”

    No!,that’s called omniscience silly!

    Apparently I can do something God doesn’t want me to do yet he’s already planned for me to do it. Such nonsense is silly but not in the way A thinks.

    Stay with me here.

    I’d rather not, here there be only your absurdities.

    God is not an atheist on a power trip.

    I don’t believe anyone has ever claimed that He is.

    He will allow you to make bad chooses but still have the foreknowledge you will make them.

    What happened to God’s plan? Are you saying I can go ahead and do stuff that isn’t in God’s plan? Man your God is a lame arsed wuss.

    Really a simple concept.

    And yet you’ve still managed to mangle it beyond all recognition.

    The conspiracy theorist so tickle me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain? Three were put to death and one was exiled. Yes! I can see why they would make Jesus up! lol!!!!!!

    None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.

  119. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:10 pm 119.A said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Whoooo! Love the atheist conspiracy theorists!

    Thanks for the great laugh Fred.

  120. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:20 pm 120.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not?”

    Yes, you are being forced.
    Not by a being, but by fate.

    There is no difference, both are being forced by some manner of process.

  121. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:22 pm 121.freddies_dead said …

    121.A said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    ROTFL!!!!!!!

    Whoooo! Love the atheist conspiracy theorists!

    Thanks for the great laugh Fred.

    I’m glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.

  122. on 29 Jan 2014 at 4:36 pm 122.freddies_dead said …

    122.Angus and Alexis said …

    “Quite simply, are you being forced to take an action or not?”

    Yes, you are being forced.
    Not by a being, but by fate.

    There is no difference, both are being forced by some manner of process.

    This just throws up a number of questions:

    How is fate “forcing” you in this context?
    If there’s no agent then are you talking about determinism?
    Do you believe free-will is possible or not?
    If you do can you give some scenarios in which it is possible?

  123. on 29 Jan 2014 at 5:23 pm 123.A said …

    ” glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.”

    I did, nearly choked on my coffee laughing…..

    Fred offers an atheist truth claim? Great! Let see the proof of your truth claim using the scientific method.

    Prediction: all Fred will offer is atheist conspiracy theories……..

    Maybe Agnus will misuse omniscient again which will be funny.????

  124. on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:02 pm 124.DPK said …

    Like a broken record, “a” once again refuses to answer even the simplist of questions because it will expose his utter lunacy. Let’s try again. This isn’t a tough one…
    “If your god knows that tomorrow I will do “x”, is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”? Yes, or no?”

  125. on 29 Jan 2014 at 7:29 pm 125.alex said …

    “is there any possible scenario that exists where tomorrow I will not do “x”?”

    nope. just like prayer results, it’s preordained. everything that unfolds has been master planned. that’s why you can pray and be happy with any result. oops, there goes the free willy.

  126. on 29 Jan 2014 at 8:27 pm 126.A said …

    You asked a question Dippy? Where? You mean the one you just asked? Lol!!!!

    I on the other hand did ask one and Freddie again has run from it……..

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!

    Quickly now, my time is limited.

  127. on 29 Jan 2014 at 8:57 pm 127.DPK said …

    Is that a yes, or a no? Your evasive is so tiresome.
    Once again, assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”, is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”?

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

  128. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:08 pm 128.freddies_dead said …

    123.A said …

    ” glad you enjoyed it. Shame for you that it’s true though.”

    I did, nearly choked on my coffee laughing…..

    Fred offers an atheist truth claim? Great! Let see the proof of your truth claim using the scientific method.

    Which of your bizarro versions of the scientific method am I supposed to use?

    Prediction: all Fred will offer is atheist conspiracy theories……..

    Cause all the historical scholars are atheists. Lol. It’s only you that thinks this is some sort of conspiracy A and yet you offer no evidence for you claims. Any chance you’ll be complying with your own demand and presenting the proof of your conspiracy claim using the scientific method?

    This paragraph also speaks volumes about what’s going to happen if we carry on with this pathetic diversion. I’m going to point out the evidence the scholars have gathered and analysed to reach the conclusions they came to and A’s going to:

    a) claim that it doesn’t fit whichever bizarro version of the scientific method he’s using this week
    and
    b) dismiss the evidence out of hand without any reasons because he’s got no positive evidence of his own.

    I tell you what A, if you’ve got a problem with the conclusions of the scholars take it up with them.

    Now back to the original discussion i.e. the logical incoherence of claiming free will whilst also claiming that an omnimax deity with a plan for everything exists.

    Go on A let’s have your argument as to how free will is possible when an omnipotent, omniscient deity has foreordained all that will come to pass?

    126.A said …

    I on the other hand did ask one and Freddie again has run from it……..

    Lol, the only one who doesn’t answer questions here is you A. We know why of course, it’s because you don’t have a coherent answer.

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!

    Lol, here we go. Making it a condition that DPK answers a question asked of someone else before you’ll answer his question only to then avoid the question further by throwing in another diversion.

    Quickly now, my time is limited.

    And the set up to do exactly what he accuses others of doing … run away.

  129. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:15 pm 129.freddies_dead said …

    129.DPK said …

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

    It’s because he knows that he’s fucked whichever answer he goes for.

    If he chooses ‘yes’ he’ll be utterly unable to come up with a coherent scenario in which it’s possible.

    Whereas if he admits that it’s ‘no’ it demonstrates another contradiction in the Bible i.e. The Bible claims free will is possible whilst also claiming attributes for it’s God which preclude any possibility of free will.

  130. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:25 pm 130.A said …

    “Cause all the historical scholars are atheists. Lol. It’s only you that thinks this is some sort of conspiracy”

    ROTFL!!! I must say my predictions are right on. Not one shred of evidence historically or scientifically to back Freddie Boy’s conspiracy claim.

    Dippy,

    Can you save Freddie? Can you provide all this proof to support his conspiracy theory?

    Still can’t define this hypothetical x or y? In just a bit I will be making a CHOICE where to eat supper. You must be sad not having a choice….lol!!!

  131. on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:48 pm 131.freddies_dead said …

    132.A said …

    ROTFL!!! I must say my predictions are right on. Not one shred of evidence historically or scientifically to back Freddie Boy’s conspiracy claim.

    Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists.

    And because he can’t answer DPK’s question he carries on trying to push this bullshit conspiracy diversion on to him.

    And also as noted he has another tactic in his desperate attempt to avoid answering DPK’s question, he keeps on with his utterly unnecessary diversion.

    So let’s see. Let’s make DPK’s hypothetical less hypothetical.

    Assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to go fishing (do “x”) instead of going to work (“y”), is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose to go to work (“y”)?

    There you go A, now answer it.

  132. on 30 Jan 2014 at 12:58 am 132.the messenger said …

    103.Angus and Alexis, so 100,000 witnesses all at the same time and many eye witness accounts are not valid proof?

    To be honest I do not see how that cannot be valid proof, so please tell me, what do you consider to be valid proof?

  133. on 30 Jan 2014 at 1:02 am 133.the messenger said …

    103.Angus and Alexis, the miracle was witnessed by Catholics, and catholic holy people were seen there(such as mary), therefore this could not have been a pagan or Islamic miracle.

  134. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:11 am 134.A said …

    “Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists”

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I agree, no conspiracy exists. Therefore your claim has been shot down and you now admit it.

    Here is your lesson. Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate and I will not need to embarrass you. You bring it on yourself silly Freddie.

    Now, you can go fishing or go go work tomorrow. Make the choice it’s OK…..God has given you a free will. But who will serve the fries if you go fish??? Lol!

    However, God does know what you will do.

  135. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:16 am 135.alex said …

    “100,000 witnesses”

    ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?

  136. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:30 am 136.alex said …

    “Here is your lesson. Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate…”

    you’re a fucking idiot. you’re not the final arbiter. you don’t get to set the rules. no matter what is said in here, you can always dispute it.

    i can’t prove gravity, but it’s real and testable. you’re going to ask me to recite the test?

    what is the test for your god? name a single repeatable test for your god. none?

    you’re an asshole. your assertion that an all knowing god gives you free will is a total contradiction. i don’t have to prove it anymore than i have to prove that a round cube doesn’t exist.

    fuckhead.

  137. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:10 am 137.DPK said …

    But hey! You are here……care to provide proof of Fred’s truth claim? Then we can answer your question. You can start by defining X….lol!!!
    Quickly now, my time is limited.

    Then you should stop wasting it and answer the question. “X” is some action that I can choose to do or not. What difference does it make what it is? Does your god only have perfect foreknowledge of certain events, but not others? How strange.
    Oh, wait, I get it, it’s a stall so you can try to change the subject! How clever of you… You’ve never tried that tactic before… Lol!

  138. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:07 am 138.Angus and Alexis said …

    “To be honest I do not see how that cannot be valid proof, so please tell me, what do you consider to be valid proof?”

    What is proof?
    A series of evidence, or arguments, that validates the truth of something.

    100 thousand people seeing the same thing proves squat, other than the “apparent” fact that they saw the same thing, the rest would fall to occam’s razor.

    Freddies_Dead said…
    “How is fate “forcing” you in this context?”

    Not that i believe in fate, but if there were an all knowing being, it would have to exist.

    Anyway, as i have said before, fate indicates that nothing can ever stop you from doing what the fate says.

    Thus it would force you.

    “If there’s no agent then are you talking about determinism?”

    The agent would be the all knowing being that sets the entire future in stone.

    “Do you believe free-will is possible or not?”

    Now? Of course i do.
    In the scenario that there is an all knowing being?
    There would be an illusion of free-will.

    “If you do can you give some scenarios in which it is possible?”

    In the scenario, there would be no actual free-will.

  139. on 30 Jan 2014 at 12:21 pm 139.alex said …

    “fate indicates that nothing can ever stop you from doing what the fate says.”

    that’s why fate is bullshit. you can’t test it, therefore you must conclude it’s crap.

    same as the omnipotent god. can god create something more omnipotent than himself? fuck no.

  140. on 30 Jan 2014 at 2:31 pm 140.Angus and Alexis said …

    alex said…
    “that’s why fate is bullshit. you can’t test it, therefore you must conclude it’s crap.”

    Agreed.

    “same as the omnipotent god. can god create something more omnipotent than himself? fuck no.”

    What i find deeply hilarious is how “A” knows little of the definitions of many words.

  141. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:19 pm 141.A said …

    Ok, I want to remind our readers of the claim made by Freddie of which has has yet to defend.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear. Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”. So by who? We get no answer and now he has ran. Can anyone back his position or are we dealing with just one of many lies by atheists?

  142. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:27 pm 142.DPK said …

    “What i find deeply hilarious is how “A” knows little of the definitions of many words”

    Common among theists is the necessity to redefine the meanings of words in order to try and not contradict themselves in their claims or shatter their house of cards their faith is built on. Case in point is messengers definition of “eternity”. Now “A” seems to imply that omniscience depends on the definition of what specific type of knowledge is being considered. Previously he has told us that slavery is really only long term employment, and messenger has told us that murder depends on who is being murdered. For example, killing a “bad” person with premeditation and intent isn’t murder, because that person is bad.
    It’s amusing to witness the torturous mental processes they must endure to maintain their ridiculous delusions.

  143. on 30 Jan 2014 at 3:48 pm 143.Angus and Alexis said …

    Yeah…I know…

  144. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:27 pm 144.alex said …

    “Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear. Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”.”

    who cares, it’s a sideshow diversion. you want me to call him names? fine, done.

    now about your all knowing god and free choice, it’s crap. end of story.

  145. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:37 pm 145.Angus and Alexis said …

    If i recall correctly, A has acknowledged that he will never reveal evidence.

    That leaves us left with Messenger, who is as useless as a brick wall when it comes to proof…

  146. on 30 Jan 2014 at 4:40 pm 146.freddies_dead said …

    136.A said …

    “Just as I said, the hypocrite is utterly unable to present evidence that any conspiracy exists”

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I agree, no conspiracy exists.

    Then why did you make the claim that one did?

    Therefore your claim has been shot down and you now admit it.

    My claim – based on the conclusions of historical scholars – was that the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries. That still stands.

    Here is your lesson.

    No-one needs lessons from you A, you’re an idiot.

    Don’t make claims you can’t substantiate and I will not need to embarrass you.

    You’ve embarrassed no-one but yourself as usual.

    You bring it on yourself silly Freddie.

    Another autobiographical statement from A.

    Now, you can go fishing or go go work tomorrow. Make the choice it’s OK…..God has given you a free will.

    A claim you will not (because you can not) substantiate.

    But who will serve the fries if you go fish??? Lol!

    You pathetic child.

    However, God does know what you will do.

    Substantiate the claim that your God exists and He knows what I will do.

  147. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:08 pm 147.freddies_dead said …

    143.A said …

    Ok, I want to remind our readers of the claim made by Freddie of which has has yet to defend.

    The claim is defended by the historical scholars who have studied the ancient manuscripts and come to that conclusion. As I’ve already said, if you have a problem with that take it up with them.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Forgive his sentence organization but his claim is clear.

    The reason the claim is clear is because there’s nothing wrong with my sentence construction.

    Be contends they were written to keep Christianity “going”.

    Who contends? And you have the nerve to question my grammar. Muphry’s Law in action.

    So by who?

    What? You want names? No one knows the true names. The Gospels themselves were written anonymously – none of them name their author(s). The names we know today were attached to them later – some time in the 2nd century. There’s not enough evidence to support the attribution of any of the gospels to the 4 named as authors and evidence to suggest that those so named were highly unlikely to have been the actual authors.

    We get no answer and now he has ran.

    Lol, I went to bed – it was nearly 11:00pm here in England when I wrote my last post yesterday.

    Can anyone back his position or are we dealing with just one of many lies by atheists?

    I’ve backed my position, whereas you never do and the only one demonstrated to be a liar on here is you A.

    Now. You claim that an omniscient God exists, that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and yet you also claim that free will still exists. Make your argument to substantiate this claim.

  148. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:14 pm 148.A said …

    Oh freddie-boy! You have really become bold in your lying. Let me repost your claim.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Now you try to claim all you stated was:

    “the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries.”

    Oh what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive!

    lol!!!!

    care to retract your first claim or do you lack the integrity?

  149. on 30 Jan 2014 at 5:32 pm 149.freddies_dead said …

    150.A said …

    Oh freddie-boy! You have really become bold in your lying. Let me repost your claim.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going”

    Now you try to claim all you stated was:

    “the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus were later forgeries.”

    Oh what a tangled web you weave when first you practice to deceive!

    lol!!!!

    Oh dear A. I see your reading for comprehension isn’t up to the task. Go back and re-read what I wrote in posts 148 & 149. You’ll see I’ve made and defended 2 claims.

    Claim 1 is regarding the authenticity of the passages in Josephus and Tacitus i.e. they’re not authentic.

    Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect.

    It’s not my fault that you can’t keep those 2 claims straight.

    care to retract your first claim or do you lack the integrity?

    I don’t need to retract either claim and you really shouldn’t question anyone else’s integrity when you have none of your own.

    Now. You claim that an omniscient God exists, that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and yet you also claim that free will still exists. Make your argument to substantiate this claim. First demonstrate the existence of your God. Then show that He is omniscient. Then you can show that He has foreordained all that will come to pass and, finally, you can show us how free will is possible in light of an omniscient, omnipotent deity with a plan.

  150. on 30 Jan 2014 at 6:05 pm 150.freddies_dead said …

    To preempt any more of A’s pathetic attempts to claim that I’ve “run away”, I’ll note that it’s early evening here now and I have a real life to live so it’s unlikely I’ll be responding to any more of his drivel until tomorrow.

  151. on 30 Jan 2014 at 7:16 pm 151.A said …

    “Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect”

    Run Freddie run. You are doubling down on your claim and sill have provided 0, zero, nada evidence to support. lol!!!!!!!

    What makes there authorship “almost certainly incorrect”? Your imagination? Lol!!!!!

    By now after a google search you have found you have no leg to stand on. Thus you continue to just state your silly opinion.

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1. You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    Run! Freddie! Run! lol!!!!

  152. on 30 Jan 2014 at 9:40 pm 152.Bazza said …

    A – You don’t seem to up to date on knowledge of biblical scholarship or the evidence for and against the historicity of the bible.

    (1)Firstly – the claimed Josephus paragraph has a hugely obvious point in it that is often over looked by Christians but that renders it painfully obviously forged. Josephus was Jewish but the supposed passage in question claims that Jesus was the messiah and that he was resurrected. If that were the case Josephus would have been a Christian and not Jewish.

    Now some scholars have tried to claim that parts of his writings on Jesus were authentic. Problem is that none agree which bits are real and which bits are fake.

    Further he was writing more than half a century after Jesus supposedly lived and died… thing is that we’ve got proof positive that a messianic figure can be woven wholly from fabrication in that sort of length of time.

    The cult of John Frum in Vanuatu is strong evidence of that occurring within recent and well observed history.

    (2)As for Tacitus – he was writing even more remotely from the supposed events, nearly a whole century had passed since Jesus was allegedly crucified.

    Further he seems to simply report, as if it were fact, the views of the second century Christians of his day. It’s nothing more than hearsay and wouldn’t be evidence that could be used in a court, let alone one charged with finding the ultimate cause of existence.

    Further not a single copy of Tacitus’ Annals survived antiquity – all surviving copies come from translations done at Abbeys by Benedictine monks.

    Further the earliest surviving documents show clear evidence of alteration when viewed using UV.

    Further there are many inconsistencies in this account – Herod is referred to as a procurator when it’s known from primary sources that his rank was prefect.

    (3) There are other sources but all of them have this same problem: Not one of them is a prime source, all of them are written long after the alleged events in question based on second hand (at least, more likely at least third or fourth hand) information gathered from unknown sources. Such sources may well have been early Christians themselves who would of course have reported what they believed as fact.

    (4) Most of those sources are in books that only survived due to translation and copying by members of the Church – it is likely that this process is open to deliberate manipulation or at the very least selectivity. Do you think the church would be likely to preserve a document which was damning in it’s evidence against the existence of Jesus through either a source which MUST have known of those events if they were true or one that perhaps reported that such events had not occurred but were merely the creation of a cult?

    (5) When it comes to the Gospels we have two main divisions in the ones mentioned. Firstly we have Matthew, Mark and Luke – the Synoptic gospels.

    These Gospels share many similarities… proof that they describe the same events, you might say?

    The problem with that is that the similarities seem to largely derive because all three of them seem to have come from the same, earlier, source or set of sources and to have bits directly and indirectly shared between them.

    Matthew and Luke seem to have had an additional shared source to Mark but the point here is that serious biblical scholars not only don’t believe that these were written by the claimed writers but that in fact they all stem from the same set of earlier documents – they are not three separate accounts but rather three versions of the same one. There’s a real trinity for you.

    (6) John is clearly from a separate source and in fact contradicts the other three gospels in many places. It also appears to have been written later than the others.

    (7) Now there is another issue – none of the Gospels so far discovered dates back to earlier than the fourth century, way, way too late for it to have been written by anyone who was in any way able to observe events at the time they describe. Fragments exist from earlier but again none of them date back far enough. The general Christian solution has been to assign early dates to their writing without evidence to back it up. However the early Christian church itself makes no mention of the gospels whatsoever until after 150 CE (AD if you prefer). The earliest fragment of any sort is from 125 CE and only contains 13 words of one verse. The next earliest is a slightly larger fragment dating between 175-225 CE The names of the supposed authors and the idea they wrote the gospels didn’t come around until the second and in some cases the third century.

    Furthermore bits strongly appear to have been added later on – the Gospel of Mark is found with two different version of the ending of it, the part describing the alleged resurrection of Christ. Originally it finished at 16:8 with the women fleeing the empty tomb – not with Jesus coming back to life but merely his body having vanished from the tomb. Some claim that this was added early on, perhaps the second century but writers as late as the fourth and fifth century didn’t have knowledge of this expanded ending.

    (7) All these problems aside, we’ll turn to the question of authorship starting with Mark.

    Mark is traditionally supposed to have been written by John Mark, an associate of the apostle Peter. Problems with this abound – starting with the fact that John Mark is known to have been a Palestinian Jew rather than a Christian. Further this would clearly be hearsay since he was allegedly writing Peter’s memoirs long after the events he’s supposedly describing. Finally there are errors in the gospel of Mark in terms of Palestinian geography and customs that make the idea of a Palestinian Jew writing this work completely untenable.

    Modern linguistic scholarship suggests that there are 2 different authors of Mark – an earlier one and a later one. It seems that the earlier one did not in fact reference the resurrection of Jesus at all.

    Next we turn to Matthew. This is supposed to have been written by ‘Matthew the tax collector’ but this is a story that crops up much later on and not much is know about this alleged writer at all.

    Modern linguistic scholarship suggests that there were in fact three sources here – an earlier document referred to as Q, a Jewish writer who wrote in Greek rather than Hebrew and the non-mainstream, non-pauline “church community” of which he was a part. It is likely that the Q document was translated from Hebrew in small fragments but that large amounts of this Gospel were originally written in Greek by the unknown author in the late first to early second century CE. This of course places it far too late be written by an eyewitness to any of the events of the alleged life of Christ and the translated fragments don’t regard those events in any real detail nor mention resurrection.

    Turning to Luke, while we don’t know who the author was it seems almost certain that this writer also wrote the Acts of the Apostles since their particular theology, language use and style all match very closely. Further both books were dedicated to an unknown person referred to as Theophilus – this may have been a name but it also may not have been since this name was often used as an honorary for an educated or learned person. Again this Gospel dates from too late to have been written by anyone witnessing the events of the alleged Christ’s life.

    Finally John… and not much to say about the author(s) here, almost nothing is known despite this Gospel being written later than all the others. It contains very, very small snippets that appear to have been written earlier – possibly even by people around at the time Jesus is supposed to have lived and died… but those snippets are too small to be helpful at all.

    What does seem apparent is that it was written in three different phases – the first being a retelling of an alleged eye witness account, the second adding in it’s own brand of theology that is very different from those in say Matthew and the third bringing it up to a fair version of what the modern Gospel of John is understood as.

    It seems almost certain that multiple authors were involved and also that these same authors wrote the First, Second and Third Epistle of John as well as the Book of Revelation. These were written from a very different theological point of view from the other gospels – Gnostic and positing that Jesus was never human, merely took on the appearance of it to hide his divinity. This Gnosticism was largely purged from the bible in the 3rd century but the fact remains that the authors were clearly of these beliefs. Further these authors took a highly anti-Jewish stance – very much contrary to the writer of Matthew.

    (8) Turning to the rest of the Bible – Paul of Tarsus IS historically known as the writer of much of the New Testament and we can even date when he was alive and where… but of course he could never have met Jesus and provides no evidence of his existence despite influencing Christianity far more than the alleged Christ ever did.

    Further one piece attributed traditionally to Paul, Hebrews, was clearly not written by Paul and was in fact introduced by Church elders some time in the fourth or fifth century. It also differs theologically from Paul’s writings.

    Moving on from Paul, we look at James… very little is known about the author(s?) of this one but what we do know suggests that the traditionally ascribed authors – either Jesus’ alleged brother James or the other Apostle of that name – are almost categorically ruled out. This is because there is very little chance that they could write in formal Greek which was originally used to pen this work. A Palestinian Jew like either of the two James would have written in Aramaic rather than formal Greek.

    Now we look to the First and Second Epistles of Peter; the first was originally ascribed to Simon Peter the Apostle… but like Mark and James the author of this one was both fluent and skilled in writing in formal, cultured Greek rather than in Aramaic. Further it references the Greek translated Old Testament, not the Hebrew OT that Simon Peter would have learned from.

    The Second Epistle wasn’t seriously held to be the work of Simon Peter at any point on the other hand. Indeed it doesn’t seem to have been written by the same author as the first epistle was – it’s much less educated Greek writing. Further it’s noted that the accounts of what should have been personal experience appear to be formulaic and the details sparse – it’s nothing that couldn’t have been drawn from other documents and suggests once again no real knowledge of the events it attempts to detail.

    The audience for both of these works by the way appears to have been Gentiles in non-Pauline areas of the diaspora but like with so much of the bible we simply don’t know who the real authors were.

    Finally we have Jude – allegedly written by Jude, brother of James the Just. The problem here is that it actually references the Epistles of Peter and therefore CANNOT have been written by Jude as he would have been long dead by the time it was penned. Late first century or early second century seems a likely date for it – especially since like many other parts of the new testament it’s written in formal, educated Greek and contains Gnostic references that the church attempted to purge in the third century. It’s possible that the writer was the head of a church competing with the tradition of Paul’s church since comments in the brief letter suggest he’d read Paul but didn’t agree with him.

    (9) So there we have it – we may not know who many of the authors were but in most cases they CANNOT have been those that the Church has historically claimed as the authors.

    tl;dr? Basically you’re wrong about both claims and additionally the fact is that the Bible presents no first hand accounts of the life of Jesus written by witnesses to the alleged events, only hearsay written many decades to centuries later on. Given that, as mentioned earlier, we know that fictional characters such as John Frum can be invented as messianic figures in less than fifty years… there is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed.

    Thanks for playing.

  153. on 30 Jan 2014 at 10:07 pm 153.A said …

    Brazier,

    First I made no claims of Josephus or Tacitus. Therefore you have a reading comprehension problem.

    Second, on the synoptic Gospels you have yet to provide sources for your contentions. On John, you have yet to provide sources for your contentions. PS: Better check your dates……

    Third, you claim referring to me “You don’t seem to up to date on knowledge of biblical scholarship”. Only one problem. I made zero claims. I did ask for Freddie and now you to provide proof of your claims. You and Freddie failed.
    ____________________________________

    You then claim “there is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed.”

    LOL!!!!!!!!!, a relatively new claim without substance that is a mere fabrication to help the atheist talking points. Dismissed without supporting evidence.
    ____________________________________________

    PS: I am very aware of Biblical scholarship and very familiar with the ancient and modern claims. However, Freddie made a very bold “Truth” claim therefore he should support such a bold assertion. Agreed? Feel free to try again.

  154. on 30 Jan 2014 at 10:33 pm 154.alex said …

    “First I made no claims of Josephus or Tacitus.”

    congratulations, motherfucker. you’ve managed to turn the burden of proof around. well done.

    but, your jeebus still does not exist. unless you got something else?

  155. on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:56 am 155.DPK said …

    Hanaha.. “A” gets completely owned and then tries to back away with his usual dodge and weave.
    Cue the sock brigade.
    Bazza, thanks for the detailed and highly informative post.
    Don’t expect any actual intellectual discourse with “A” he has nothing, never has, never will.
    “A”, seems god has determined that you would once again get hung out to dry… Lol, funny how that omniscience thing never seems to work to your advantage, huh?

  156. on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:19 am 156.freddies_dead said …

    153.A said …

    “Claim 2 is regarding the authorship of the gospels i.e. they were written anonymously and the attributions of authorship (made in the 2nd century) are almost certainly incorrect”

    Run Freddie run. You are doubling down on your claim and sill have provided 0, zero, nada evidence to support. lol!!!!!!!

    It’s a lol alright, coming from you, the man who never ever provides evidence for any of his claims.

    What makes there authorship “almost certainly incorrect”? Your imagination? Lol!!!!!

    Nope, the work of the historical scholars as I’ve already noted.

    By now after a google search you have found you have no leg to stand on. Thus you continue to just state your silly opinion.

    More like your Google search hasn’t turned up anything to counter my claims so you’re back simply stating your silly opinion that I’m wrong.

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1.

    Because you can’t.

    You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    Go on then. You keep making these grandiose claims but never actually follow through.

    Because you can’t.

    Run! Freddie! Run! lol!!!!

    What a surprise, playground taunts is all you have.

    155. A said (in response to Bazza’s pretty thorough explanation of current historical thought regarding the authorship of the Josephus, Tacitus and gospel writings)

    Freddie made a very bold “Truth” claim therefore he should support such a bold assertion. Agreed?

    Such hypocrisy. You made some very bold “Truth” claims yourself back in post 136, claims you’ve so far failed to back up in any way, shape or form. As you agree such bold claims should be supported why are we still waiting for you to do so?

    Here’s a quick reminder of what you claimed:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    These claims require several other things to be true:

    1) Your God needs to exist.
    2) It must be the Christian God (unless you’ve has been lying all along about your religious worldview).
    3) Your God is omniscient (both you and the Bible make this claim)
    4) Your God has a plan (as claimed in the Bible – purported to be the inerrant word of your God)

    I have asked you several times now to provide your argument supporting the existence of the Christian God and to explain how free will is possible in light of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being who has allegedly foreordained all that will come to pass.

    What have we been given 0, zero, nada evidence to support lol indeed.

    In which case we’re perfectly justified in dismissing your claims as they come without any supporting evidence.

    Watch as A attempts to divert things back to the Gospel authors as he has not one single shred of evidence to prove the existence of his God.

  157. on 31 Jan 2014 at 2:58 pm 157.A said …

    “Nope, the work of the historical scholars as I’ve already noted.”

    sigh………..no you have not noted……still opinion and vague references. So lets have all these scholars and the arguments….. Lol!!!

    Remember, you claimed truth so every scholar would all conclude Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by others.

    The best part…….they would all conclude that was a myth to keep Christianity going……lol!!!;;!;!

    I have the popcorn ready. This will be good!!!!

  158. on 31 Jan 2014 at 3:03 pm 158.A said …

    “I have asked you several times now to provide your argument supporting the existence of the Christian God”

    Yes you have, although I have made no claim. But let me answer so you understand. Scholars make the claim.
    Then add multiple paragraphs of bloviating opinion.

    There you go!!

    lol!!!!!!

  159. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:21 pm 159.freddies_dead said …

    158.freddies_dead said …

    Watch as A attempts to divert things back to the Gospel authors as he has not one single shred of evidence to prove the existence of his God.

    Yup, I was dead right as usual.

    160.A said …

    I have made no claim

    Liar.

    Here’s a quick reminder of what you claimed back in post 136:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    In post 158 you not only claimed something, you boasted about your ability to do it:

    I have purposely have not even referenced claim 1. You have imagined I referenced that it seems? Lol!!! However if I even needed to I could take that apart to…..lol!!!

    And I asked you to go ahead. Once more … nothing.

    The silence of you supporting your claims is deafening A. Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because you have nothing to offer.

  160. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:37 pm 160.A said …

    Freddie-boy!!, I answered you in post 158! Lol!!!!

    Come on buddy, if you can just use scholars as your answer why can’t I my boy!

    sigh….I guess freddie’s truth was not really truth after all. Popcorn getting cold and Freddie is dead.

    Wait, was Brazier your scholar? Lol!! He was, you!!

    PS: I will take apart claim 1 when I am done with 2. Part of the excitement is hooking the fish and letting it run. ????

  161. on 31 Jan 2014 at 4:53 pm 161.freddies_dead said …

    162.A said …

    Freddie-boy!!, I answered you in post 158! Lol!!!!

    You never answer anything A.

    Come on buddy, if you can just use scholars as your answer why can’t I my boy!

    Name them. I’ve already named a couple. Then you can give some of the evidence they based their conclusions on (as Bazza has done). The evidence they have must be compelling to you so present it.

    sigh….I guess freddie’s truth was not really truth after all. Popcorn getting cold and Freddie is dead.

    You wouldn’t know truth if it came up and shat on your popcorn A. That’s why you’re a theist.

    Wait, was Brazier your scholar? Lol!! He was, you!!

    Now you’re just gibbering.

    PS: I will take apart claim 1 when I am done with 2. Part of the excitement is hooking the fish and letting it run. ????

    You’ll do nothing. As always. Why? Because you can’t.

  162. on 31 Jan 2014 at 5:15 pm 162.A said …

    “Name them. I’ve already named a couple”

    Great!! List one or two in your next post so we can examine their claims. List a couple who claim the synoptic were named with their current names to “keep Christianity going”.

    We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……

  163. on 31 Jan 2014 at 8:42 pm 163.DPK said …

    “We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……”

    So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.

    Let’s try again with this one that you ran away from screaming like a frightened little schoolgirl.

    “Once again, assuming your god has perfect knowledge that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”,(x and y being defined as 2 different actions presumably determined solely by my free will) is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”?”

    Your evasiveness would indicate that you are very uncomfortable with the answer. Why is that?

  164. on 31 Jan 2014 at 8:57 pm 164.A said …

    “So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.”

    I agree DPK. I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.

    I guess since he can’t back up his claims he is just a boy of faith. lol!!!

  165. on 31 Jan 2014 at 10:08 pm 165.DPK said …

    Knowing full well we are talking about you… are you going to answer the question? hahahahha… no you are not, and we all know why, don’t we?

    Shall I embarrass you once again??
    Why not?
    Assuming your god has perfect knowledge (which you claim e does)that tomorrow I will choose to do “x” instead of “y”,(x and y being defined as 2 different actions presumably determined solely by my free will, which you also claim I have) is there any possible scenario in which I will actually choose “y”? Any possibility AT ALL?

  166. on 31 Jan 2014 at 11:17 pm 166.alex said …

    “I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.”

    that’s because you’re a moron. think back about the discussion about evolution. motherfuckers like you will simply never accept it.

    you do the same shit with just about anything an atheist will say in here. you’re somehow convinced that if an atheist cannot prove anything to your liking, this somehow proves your bullshit god.

    let’s just say everything, 100%, that every atheist has uttered in here is total bullshit, how the fuck does that prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?

  167. on 31 Jan 2014 at 11:52 pm 167.A said …

    ” back about the discussion about evolution”

    Hey! Great idea Alexis. Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution or takes place. I couldn’t get Freddie to answer that one either.

    I need more than f-bombs and weak attempts at insults. I am a man of science.

    “prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?”

    Scholars say so.:)

  168. on 01 Feb 2014 at 12:07 am 168.the messenger said …

    135.alex, you said the following.(ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it.)

    Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.

    Tell me, are you high or drunk? If so, please see a doctor.

    Now, getting back to the subject at hand, the hindi event was disproven by science, but the sun miracle was not disproven. 100,000 at the same time saw a miracle in Portugal, and none of them denied it. If the miracle was fake, it would have been denied by at least one person there. But it was not denied by any of the witnesses and is therefore a true miracle.

  169. on 01 Feb 2014 at 1:16 am 169.alex said …

    “Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.”

    i completely understand now, why you’re such a fucked up, dumbass, piece of shit. your stoopid, twisted biblical interpretations are now understandable. you are mentally retarded. i will not explain my post so that you may wallow, puzzled in your brine pool of stupidity. here’s my post again, the source of your great bewilderment.

    “ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?”

  170. on 01 Feb 2014 at 1:23 am 170.alex said …

    “Scholars say so.:)”

    you dumbass. you indignantly challenge numerous statements in here, and you answer with that brilliantly crafted retort? it proves you’re a dumb motherfucker, prolly messenger’s college kin.

    “Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution ”

    who cares? i’ve already told you that science is all bullshit, but you keep trying to sidetrack by endlessly trying to regurgitate the sideshit. go fuck yourself. it’s already in god’s plan sans free will and all. it’s called masturbation, see?

    fucking asshole.

  171. on 01 Feb 2014 at 5:54 pm 171.DPK said …

    “Let me tell you something brother, their are only 7 billion people on the earth, therefore your “750bilion” claim is crap.”

    Messy, ever occur to you that maybe he was only speaking of a metaphorical 750 billion, as a way of saying “a lot”? Much like your god uses the word “eternal” to mean “not actually forever, but a long time”. hahahaha… we can play this game too, see?

    A seems to be unwilling to answer the question about the omniscient properties of his god. He has claimed in the past that it is possible for you to have complete free will to choose your future actions, even though his god already has knowledge of exactly what you will do, therefore negating ANY possibility of you actually being able to choose anything but what he already knows you will do. The idea of the 2 concepts being possible at the same time is of course, completely impossible.
    I will take his refusal to debate the issue a concession that his position is indefensible.
    Next.

  172. on 02 Feb 2014 at 12:00 am 172.DPK said …

    Now that we have settled the issue of free will and an omniscient god as an impossibility, let’s see if we can get messenger straightened out.
    Messy continually refers back to one isolated event pegged the “miracle” of the sun as evidence for the existence of his god. Now this event, in which the sun was reported, by a large number of people, to have moved rapidly about the sky, dancing around, spinning, and changing position. Let’s look at the claims.
    First, this phenomenon apparently had no actual purpose…. In other words, no long lasting miraculous events came from it, so,it makes you wonder why god would have need for something so useless as methophorically “burning rubber”? A flashy show with more actual point. It is curious to note that many people who were ALSO there at the same time, reported seeing nothing.
    More importantly, no observatories anywhere in the world reported that the sun actually moved. Indeed, if it had, such an event would have seriously disrupted the orbits of the earth and all the bodies in the solar system. This would have left a lasting and measurable affect to this day. Furthermore, a body as large as the sun moving millions of miles and suddenly changing direction would defy the laws of physics and would have had profound and lasting effects on everything from climate to geology.
    In short… The motion attributed to the sun from the people there that day did NOT in fact happen in reality. If it had, we would have unquestionable evidence left behind.

    So, we have a name for what we call it when a person or group of people see an event that did not, in fact, happen. It is called an hallucination, and it is not at all uncommon for people to have them. Group hallucinations, or mass hysteria, are also a well documented and not uncommon occurrence. Look it up.

  173. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:02 am 173.the messenger said …

    171.DPK, my conclusions are all supported by text evidence that I have provided to you. Nothing that alex has said even remotely supports you metaphor claim.

    You are an idiot.

  174. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:15 am 174.the messenger said …

    169.alex, only a retarted person, like your self, would believe that 750 billion people are on the earth.

    I do not twist biblical interpretations. All of my claims are made by studying the passages and seeing the bible as one whole book instead of separate verses like you see it.

  175. on 02 Feb 2014 at 6:13 am 175.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger, you have already been called out for twisting bible verses.

    Do not lie.

    You have twisted “eternal”, and still cling to your deluded take on homosexuals.

  176. on 02 Feb 2014 at 1:51 pm 176.alex said …

    “I do not twist biblical interpretations.”

    you refuse you stone adulterers and sunday workers. you say that rapists can marry their victims. you’ve spoken to god. you say homosexuals are no good. you say allah and yahweh are the same.

    here’s my earlier post AGAIN:
    “ganesha milk miracle, motherfucker. beats your bullshit 100k. 750 billion hindus witnessed it. bullshit you say? what? my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?”

    what part of “my bullshit is more bullshit than yours?” is difficult to understand. oops, i forget, you’re a dumbass, bitchass, motherfucker.

  177. on 02 Feb 2014 at 2:02 pm 177.alex said …

    as somebody pointed out, eternal is not what you interpret, you dumbfuck.

    before you get on your strawman shit again, my cussing and ill temperament has nothing to do with your bullshit god. as i sit here doing my work, it’s too easy to respond to your stupidity.

    go fuck yourself and go seattle! nothing against peyton, but the media overfawns on him. reminds me too much of your god.

  178. on 02 Feb 2014 at 6:38 pm 178.DPK said …

    171.DPK, my conclusions are all supported by text evidence that I have provided to you.

    Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear, both live in person, and on television around the world.
    Do you believe he actually made the Statue of Liberty disappear?

  179. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:07 am 179.A said …

    “Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear”

    Dippy. I was just in NY, the statue is still there……geez …..lol!!!!

    Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup? That is more impressive than Dip’s fear that the statue disappeared! Lol!!!

  180. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:24 am 180.alex said …

    “Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup”

    more diversions? how about: i don’t know….

    would you like to prove that your god did it?

    how does an all knowing god give you free will?

    you’re a fucking moron.

  181. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:38 am 181.alex said …

    “That is more impressive than Dip’s fear that the statue disappeared! Lol!!!”

    self Lol with your schoolyard taunt? you’re a pathetic piece of shit motherfucker. you got nothing, so you resort to going back and rehash.

    asshole.

  182. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:14 am 182.the messenger said …

    176.alex, I never said that homosexuals were no good. I speak to GOD through prayer, and he answers through signs in my life. I already told you that the stoning is metaphorical, and I provided text evidence to support it.

  183. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:21 am 183.the messenger said …

    178.DPK, the statue of liberty trick can be explained by science, but “the miracle of the sun” can’t.

    Tell me, can you explain that event?

    I am waiting.

  184. on 03 Feb 2014 at 2:32 am 184.alex said …

    “…that the stoning is metaphorical…”

    and you also said that rapists can get off by marrying the victim. you know why your other homies don’t agree with you? coz, you’re a dumbfuck.

    “..the statue of liberty trick can be explained by science, but “the miracle of the sun” can’t.”

    he already did, you dumbass. “…a body as large as the sun moving millions of miles and suddenly changing direction would defy the laws of physics and would have had profound and lasting effects on everything from climate to geology.”

    of course, you won’t get it. you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  185. on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:43 am 185.the messenger said …

    184.alex, the witnesses of the “miracle of the sun” reported to have seen a large disk in the sky as bright as the SUN. Some of them assumed that it was the sun, but that was never confirmed. The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there.

    You really lack in knowledge.

  186. on 03 Feb 2014 at 4:00 am 186.alex said …

    “The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there.”

    keep hanging on to you delusion, you dumb motherfucker. if it wasn’t the sun, it was some sort of god shit, wasn’t it? even though you can’t prove it, it must be the god shit, wasn’t it?

    i can’t find my other sock and scientists can’t figure it out. it must be god shit, isn’t it? go fuck yourself, you rapist fantasizing bitch. go pray to allah/yahweh since you say they are both the same.

    oh, and get some of your homies to come in here and to agree with you.

  187. on 03 Feb 2014 at 5:30 am 187.DPK said …

    The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there….
    Obviously. So the “miracle of the sun” had nothing to do with the sun? Lol!

    So some people claimed to see something in the sky that other people did not. Why do I need to “explain it”? I have no idea what they thought they saw, and neither do you.

    I don’t need to explain it any more than you need to prove the Statue of Liberty did NOT actually disappear. Get it now, moron? The default answer to anything that is not immediately explainable is not therefore “god did it”… See?

  188. on 03 Feb 2014 at 7:28 am 188.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “176.alex, I never said that homosexuals were no good.”

    Should homosexuals be killed simply for having sex, or NOT?

    Answer this, no bullshit.

  189. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:20 pm 189.freddies_dead said …

    164.A said …

    “Name them. I’ve already named a couple”

    Great!! List one or two in your next post so we can examine their claims. List a couple who claim the synoptic were named with their current names to “keep Christianity going”.

    Which, of course, is your way of avoiding providing any evidence for your claims. You’re just so predictable.

    We are getting closer! Warming up the popcorns sgain……

    Getting closer to what? You providing evidence? Unlikely.

    166.A said … (to DPK)

    “So many demands from someone who never responds in any honest way to even the simplest of questions.”

    I agree DPK. I ask one question to Freddie…simply back up his claim and responds with questions.

    I guess since he can’t back up his claims he is just a boy of faith. lol!!!

    Liar. I have provided the names of 2 scholars and Bazza presented some of the evidence those scholars used to come to the conclusion that the paragraphs in Josephus and Tacitus are forgeries and that the gospel authors are almost certainly not the people who were attributed with authorship back in the 2nd century.

    Then, since you made such a big fuss about people backing up their claims, I presented you with the opportunity to back up some of the claims you’ve made such as:

    God has given you a free will.

    &

    God does know what you will do.

    So far you’ve said you know these things because of “scholars”, although you refuse to name any and also refuse to adduce any of the evidence that they supposedly used to come to these conclusions. Don’t worry, we know why. It’s because you can’t.

  190. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:21 pm 190.freddies_dead said …

    169.A said … (to alex)

    ” back about the discussion about evolution”

    Hey! Great idea Alexis. Using the scientific method, prove that macroevolution or takes place. I couldn’t get Freddie to answer that one either.

    Liar. I proved it several times over on that thread. For months we went through this, so much so that you had to resort to bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with evolution – like abiogenesis – and when we finally got to a point where science doesn’t know what happened you still couldn’t produce any evidence for your claim that God did it.

    I need more than f-bombs and weak attempts at insults. I am a man of science.

    Liar.

    “prove that your all knowing god gives you free will?”

    Scholars say so.:)

    Which ones and what evidence do they base these conclusions on?

  191. on 03 Feb 2014 at 1:24 pm 191.freddies_dead said …

    And I notice that messy is still lying about proving the Bible commands to stone people to death are metaphors.

    That’s funny but then he doubles down on the stupidity and makes the claim that the miracle of the sun didn’t actually contain any sun.

    You really couldn’t make this shit up.

  192. on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:23 pm 192.DPK said …

    180.A said …

    “Messy, millions of people worldwide watched David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty disappear”
    Dippy. I was just in NY, the statue is still there……geez …..lol!!!!

    Well of course it is. David clearly returned it after he made it disappear. Are you an idiot?
    I take it by your mocking tone that you believe what all those people saw was just an illusion? Can you prove it?

    I take it since you took the time to chime in with a completely meaningless attempt at mockery, that you agree with Messy, that the “miracle” he describes with the sun moving around several million miles per second and changing shape actually occurred? What evidence do you offer that this was not also simply an illusion or hallucination? I mean, we have 2 miraculous events witnessed by large numbers of people without a conclusive explanation. The only difference is EVERYONE who witnessed Copperfield’s miracle reported seeing the statue “disappear”, but not everyone at Fatima in 1917 reported seeing the sun dance around.

  193. on 03 Feb 2014 at 4:55 pm 193.DPK said …

    180.A said …
    “Tell me…….how did the first cell create itself from the primordial soup?”

    I don’t know. Do you?
    If so, your Nobel Prize awaits. Tell us the explanation, and don’t forget to include your sources.

    Anybody need a beer?

  194. on 03 Feb 2014 at 9:04 pm 194.A said …

    “I have provided the names of 2 scholars.

    Liar

    “Brazza presented some of the evidence”

    Liar

    Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.

    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..

    sigh……

  195. on 03 Feb 2014 at 10:59 pm 195.DPK said …

    The fossil record is far more compelling evidence than a dancing sun and some ancient story books of questionable origin.

    What else you got? I thought you were going to explain to us the origin of life and reconcile the idea of free will with a future that has already been determined.
    What happened?

  196. on 03 Feb 2014 at 11:13 pm 196.A said …

    ” fossil record is far more compelling evidence”

    Liar

    Evidence of what?

    Atheism? lol!!!!!!!

    Dippy, make yourself useful and post the two scholars never-steady Freddie claimed he referenced!

    lol;!!!!!

    Thanks go coming

  197. on 03 Feb 2014 at 11:45 pm 197.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said.
    “Evidence of what?”

    The fossil record, when cross referenced with anatomy, and genetic trees, fits perfectly, and is the single most compelling piece of evidence for evolution.

  198. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:08 am 198.DPK said …

    So, I asked… Again…
    “What else you got? I thought you were going to explain to us the origin of life and reconcile the idea of free will with a future that has already been determined.
    What happened?”

    To which the blowhard “A” replied:
    “Dippy, make yourself useful and post the two scholars never-steady Freddie claimed he referenced!”

    So, I guess we take that as another concession you have absolutely nothing?
    Not even a dancing sun or talking donkey? Shit man, even the bible writers could make up better stories than you, and they didn’t have an Astrophysics degree Lol. You’re what we call a no- trick pony! Hahaha.

  199. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:25 am 199.alex said …

    “Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.
    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..”

    in your wildest dream, all atheists are liars. even wilder, all the heathens are killed!

    what’s that smell? all the xtian god shit, muslim god shit, hindu god shit still stinks!

    the premise that THE muslim god AND THE xtian god AND ALL the hindu gods created man is still impossible. same shit with an all knowing god giving you free will.

    btw, why would THE god even utter, “thou shalt not have no other gods….”? ooops, i fergit. it’s all bullshit, even though there are no atheists to say it.

  200. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:52 am 200.the messenger said …

    188.Angus and Alexis, no they should not. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and to love all people no matter what. They law states nothing about killing homosexuals.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply