home
RSS
September 15th, 2011
07:53 AM ET

soundoff (998 Responses)
  1. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    Eat your meat! How can you have any puddin' if you don't eat your meat!

    September 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm |
  2. Realist

    Believers are fond of saying *please provide us evidences to prove over something*. But when evidences met them, they just refuse to consider it by denying their credebility and such. Google debunked god. Don't take it literally. It simply means to say, *lots of assumed evidence for bible authenticity and naratives have been debunked and well-refuted by critics, skeptics, scholars, ect. All you have to do is to search them at the google. Here's one: Biblical Archaeology
    http://wp.me/p1rOQJ-1f

    September 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm |
  3. Realist

    Believers are fond of saying *please provide us evidences to prove over something*. But when evidences met them, they just refuse to consider it by denying their credebility and such. Google debunked god. Don't take it literally. It simply means to say, lots of evidence against bible authenticity and naratives have been debunked and well-refuted. All you have to do is to search them at the google. Here's one: Biblical Archaeology
    http://wp.me/p1rOQJ-1f

    September 15, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  4. GodBeliever

    Pat

    I agree. Why are they blogging on a belief page. It seems that do not have anything else productine to than attack those who believe in God with there mere opinions on what they beieve.

    God speaks about these types of individulas when he says "the fool has said in his heart there is no God"...

    They are certainly living up to God's defintion of them as Fools!

    September 15, 2011 at 7:33 pm |
    • *frank*

      Shut up, idiot.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      I think you are the fool, speaking about "God" on a web page about Richard Branson and his ackowledging of evolution.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:42 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Zing! You sure put those atheists in their place godsucker.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:45 pm |
    • Geekalot

      I think atheists have finally reached the point where they are tired of being 2nd class citizens forced to live by the standards set by goat hearders from 3500 years ago who wouldn't have been able to tell you what was beyond that mountain over yonder, who knew nothing of microbiology, paleontology, geology, plate techtonics, physics, etc.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • DogBeliever

      Funny how many religious people hate freedom of speech.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      herbert is such a nice, loving Christian. So nice he'll damn you to hell, spit on your post, delete your post, and then make his own post ten times worse than anyone else's.
      Yeah, we're feeling the love.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • That's a good idea, herbert

      I think I will do unto herbert as he does to frank and report abuse on every herbert post. Great idea. Thanks herbie!

      September 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @jimmy g
      Before proceeding with the lynching ,slow down,Read *franks* post,slowly, got it?Then read mine,do you see the joke ,or was it just a little to fast for you?God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 8:31 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, I get it, I get it, Herbie! You don't even know what a joke is!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:16 pm |
    • Fred1

      God also allowed satin to torture Job just so god could win a bet with satin

      September 15, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Hey john
      bite me

      September 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @fred1
      Iif theology were brains,you'd need a drool cup.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Yo Herbie! Whatever happened to "bite me, god bless!" It just ain't the same without your screamingly insincere salutation!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:24 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @john
      previous post was a little harsh, let me rephrase my sentiments
      hey john
      bite me
      God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 9:25 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      I mean, really.
      bite me
      i want your se.x
      god bless

      September 15, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @john
      previous post was a little too secksy, let me rephrase my sentiments
      hey john
      bite me hard
      i love it when you do that
      God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 9:30 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, Herbie! You CARE!!!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:34 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      impersonaters leave an electronic trail that will be reported.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:37 pm |
    • herbert juarez, Shining Example Of Christian Love!

      herbert prefers to bite the other cheek.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh darn. You mean that wasn't you, Herbie? I'm haven't felt so crushed since BG told me that we had no future together!!!!!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      I brought a rope, herbert.

      gawd blesh

      September 15, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Iconoclast

      Without slinging mud, I really do want to provide a rational argument. True it is a "belief" blog, but Atheism is a belief is it not? I believe with every fiber of my being that god as described in your book does not exist. In additon, the article is about one man's belief in evolution. I believe that is also a belief. So why shouldn't atheists be permitted to post on a belief blog? I do realize that belief in god and religion is hard to defend in the face of rational argument, which explains your gut reaction to censor it. I also believe that some of these pos(t)ers are just nasty little trolls, I really wish the discussion could be more civil. However, as a freethinker I admit I am tired of religious rules being imposed on me by people who think they know what's best for me. For instance, I cannot buy alcohol in my little community on Sunday, I have to drive several miles outside of the township. What does this accomplish? Wasted gas, wasted time, inconvenience to me. All because some supposedly well meaning religious people think it's an abomination to sell or consume alcohol on Sunday. As a former Jew I should protest the sale of booze from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, let's see how that flies shall we? Imposing your rules on me makes as much sense as imposing mine on you. That is why atheists comment, to remind the religious that there are other beliefs around, and yours is as subject to question and ridicule as anyone elses.

      September 16, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  5. Muneef

    "Monkey Got A Banana".

    September 15, 2011 at 7:24 pm |
    • uh

      Try the zoo, but obviously you don't understand evolution.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Muneef

      Hmm.
      Evolution is a big wide word but what ever it says I might agree to Evolution of the Animals,insects,plants becoming into more lines of their family kind through some mix breed...up to here is fine, But am not convinced nor can accept that mankind is a developed evolution of monkeys/apes...!! Which makes me wonder if that was the case why then it stopped producing mankind from monkeys?

      September 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm |
    • Geekalot

      So, the fact that we share over 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, more than with any other animal means nothing? Or that we share 97% of our DNA with Gorillas? Orangotans, a bit less. DNA is rather conclusive. If we trace the DNA back further the next relatives are monkeys and lemers. And eventually you can trace it back to something that looks something like a mole. That's about the time Dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Do the multiple skelitons of dinosaurs with feathers not demonstrate the evolution of birds from dinosaurs? The problem most religionist have is that they think in terms of human lifetimes. You aren't going to see drastic changes in 100 years, or even 1000 years. But 100,000 years? Maybe. 1,000,000 years? Probably. 100,000,000 years? Certainly. 1,000,000,000 years? Absolutely. Wanna know why wolves and dogs can stillinterbreed? Because we only domesticated god from wolves 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. At a genetic level they are nearly identical. Ever wondered why whales are mammals? Because the are decendants of land creatures who went back into the water. Ever wondered why so many mammals have 5 digit on their hand and feet? Because the all are decendents of a fish whose fins happened to have 5 bones. did you knowthat an isolated group of humans with dark skin who move into a cold climate and remain isolated for about 20,000 years will evolve light skin? The reverse would be true too.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Self-asphyxiation; do us a favor and look into it.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm |
    • Geekalot

      LOL...just reread my post and noticed I wrote god instead of dog....this was truly a typo....no offense intended πŸ˜›

      September 15, 2011 at 8:20 pm |
    • Muneef

      Geekalot.

      Thanks for your comments and I accept all that you mentioned except the part that says Mankind is a result of Apes or Monkeys Evolution... A verse in the Quran has spoken of that we are all creatures originated from "water&soils" and that out of it came all those whom later have interbred into various kinds of animals and creatures... Another verse spoken that GOD has created mankind at the best of it's creation... Which means no chance of evolution...although it says that those rejected GOD and the Prophets of GOD had been returned to the worse of creations... An example of that was given in another verse about a few of a nation who did that were cursed into becoming "Monkeys/Apes and Hogs" !! Strange though how much alike are the Monkeys/Apes&Hogs to Mankind...!! Would you accept in such case the devolution of Mankind into Animal?

      September 15, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Lot A. Geek

      "LOL...just reread my post and noticed I wrote god instead of dog....this was truly a typo....no offense intended"

      Oh that's a MIRACLE!

      September 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Tell ya what, Muneef. Compare the dna sequences of humans and chimpanzees and then compare the dna sequences of humans and mud. I think you'll notice something interesting!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:19 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      Of course I know there would be a difference but who said our blood would be like mud ? All been said that we were created coming out of it but that does not make us be as it is !! Where did evolution go about that any way,since evolution must had played a major rule in the development of our bloods from mud all through the millions or billions of years mentioned above post of "Geekalot". ?!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Uh, Muneef? Mud doesn't have dna or blood or any of that stuff. So you really think it's credible that god made us from mud, while simultaneously allowing evolution to create a species that is anatomically close to us, mentally not as far as many assume and that also shares about 99% of our genetic make up? This strikes me a seriously unparsimonious, Muneef.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      Haha. That much my dear you want to be a monkey? Well then be it as you like... πŸ™‚

      September 15, 2011 at 9:50 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Muneef must think he is descended from a dog named Allah.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:54 pm |
    • John Richardson

      It's not about what I want. It's about what the evidence overwhelmingly says. I love animals, but am in fact not particularly fond of primates. If I believed what I WANTED to believe, I'd believe we were the world's most advanced canines. But the evidence is totally against that, though we are a lot closer to canines than we are to mud! (And why are so many Christians and Muslims horrified at the thought that we, with our many mammalian traits, are related to animals but perfectly cool with stories of us being fashioned out of clay or dirt or mud or whatever? If this were about what's most insulting, sure these creation tales are about as insulting an origin for humans as you can get, no?)

      September 15, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      You never will know how much life is within that drop of muddy water...am sure what ever we were able to magnify to the size we can see is just a small percentage of the total lives it contains...!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
    • John Richardson

      I should mention that I AM rather fond of some of the "lower primates", such as lemurs.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Oh, so now the theory is that god made us out of the bacteria, diatoms and other microscopic life in muddy water? Ok, I'm back to the dna sequencing argument.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:03 pm |
    • John Richardson

      I should, however, also mention that I am not fond of ALL lower primates. Republicans, for instance, tend to rub me the wrong way.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:06 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      Yes I did say that we as mankind are related to all animals but by originating from the same components that been used for their creation...GOD has told us life on Earth is just a Drop of Water the mixed with earth and created life...!
      How much life do you see coming up from earth after rains...! GOD could have grown our first creations as mankind and animals from the grounds as grass does grow from earth after rains...! But was there any one to certify that or is there any who can deny such ability and possibility!!
      Any way the verse speaks that we will grow back from earth as dose grass on the date we are called for the date of judgment...

      September 15, 2011 at 10:11 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      May I pull out as got to catch with my fajer prayers and have my sleep for Friday noon prayers may we catch up other day.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:15 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Yes, Muneef, wherever there is water that is neither scalding hot or frigid, there tends to be life, sometimes oodles of it and much of it invisible to the naked eye. THAT much we can agree on. Oh, and we can also agree that life turns to compost after death. No argument there. I'll leave it at that, for now! Good night!

      September 15, 2011 at 10:18 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.

      Hmm.
      They say a part at the end of the spine of Mankind at the size of a Tomato seed remains untouched by rot nor it become composted and that this seed remains in the ground until resurrection date when it rains and these remaining spinal seeds grow from earth as plants to head for the place of judgment...! I just wonder what happens to this seed when people are burnt to dust...?? Does it go to dust or remain in shape this I wouldn't know.....!?

      September 16, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Muneef

      John Rich.
      They already found some living organisms in the bottom of the sea at hottest spots where underwater volcanos breath as well as having found it at the coldest spots in the north or south poles...!
      Simple basic organisms of (Water&Earth) were the source of all complex creations...

      September 16, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
  6. Pat

    Wonder what all these atheists are doing on this page??? Looking for our God...

    September 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • JohnR

      Oh, did you lose him?

      September 15, 2011 at 7:23 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      Wonder what all these Christians are doing on this page??? Looking for the truth... (Hint: This article is about a man acknowledging evolution.)

      September 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Yippie Kai Yea MF

      September 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      So, Pat, why do you think you're here? Lose something? Looking for someone? Just want to share your hate?
      Come at us, bro!

      September 15, 2011 at 8:28 pm |
    • John Richardson

      Yo, Pat! First you lose your god. Then you expect non-believers to go on some search and rescue mission. Then you disappear. What's up with that?

      Anyway, before mustering the troops for the great god hunt, you should first look in places where you've been. Have you, for instance, looked between the sofa cushions? You'd be amazed at all you can find down there!

      September 15, 2011 at 9:22 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Pat doesn't understand us.
      Time for a divorce, Pat. We want half of everything you own.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:56 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      Who? If we were looking for god, we'd first have to believe it existed. I believe this is a belief blog, not dedicated to christian's in particular but instead dedicated to people of every belief. Believing in science doesn't take much...the facts say it all....it's just unfortunate that you are too blind to see that.

      September 16, 2011 at 8:43 am |
  7. Cyberomeo

    Everyone have right to believe what their believe but to believe in evolution is something different because evolution can't describe better than Al-Quran & Bible...The Higg's Particle exist but if you look at it like that then you can't find it but if you do find it then believe me evolution is only a very – very small part than what Al-Qur'an & Bible have...

    September 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Your genius startled me

      September 15, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • uh

      The bible is true because the bible says so, is that about right? LMAO!

      September 15, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      Evolution is science. It is ridiculous to compare it with religion. It's like comparing the laws of thermodynamics with religion.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
    • Sid

      Oh, that "Higg's Particle". Yeah, you'll learn a lot about that in the bible...

      September 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • Geekalot

      I will say it again, belief is the wrong word to use. Strongly religious folks are so stuck in their godthink that they cant conceive of not believing in anything. Science is about observation, study, data collection. It is about finding the most likely reason why something works the way it does. Knowledge in a particular area of study grows over time and the gaps in the knowledge shrink, but there is ALWAYS more to learn. But the religious want things explained in absolutes. It make them feel safe and secure. When someone who is a scientist, or an atheist–or heck, an atheist scientist– says they don't know precisely how life rose from lifelessness, the religious sheeple shout "See! They don't know. Ha! We are so glad we know God did it all." This is pure folly...willful ignorance.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • Iconoclast

      So everyone has a right to believe what they want, as long as it's not evolution? Up yours!

      September 16, 2011 at 4:12 pm |
  8. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    I've met god ... she's a mean b!tch.

    September 15, 2011 at 7:12 pm |
    • Fiji

      No, that is your Dog!!!!

      September 15, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Lucifer's Evil Twin is dyslexic? Who knew?

      September 15, 2011 at 8:30 pm |
  9. Godbeliever

    Al

    I am just asking for ONE ONLY ONE. With all his education I am sure he can think of JUST ONE from his reported many.

    It should not be too dificult since claims to know many.

    September 15, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
  10. GodBeliever

    FREE

    Why are you asking me? I did not make the definition. God did. I am just the messenger. Why don't you ask God?

    Do you believe in the Big Bang? If you do you have greater faith than all us having never seen the Big Bang.

    If you do believe in the Big Bang? Why does it allow so much evil in the world?

    September 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      Sorry pal, "God" doesn't answer. He lives in your head. I might as well ask the green monster under my bed.

      By the way, physical events such as the Big Bang doesn't allow anything. Atheist don't belive in any higher consciousness. The Big Bang was just a huge explosion and didn't consciously decide anything.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:26 pm |
    • Geekalot

      Belief is the wrong word. Scientific research is about gathering data, applying higher mathmatics to observed phenomina in order to solve mysteries about how things work in the universe. It is about building a body of evidence and seeking peer review from other scientists, mathmaticians, physacists, etc. It seeks to provide the most likely explanations based on observations. There are o absolutes. This bothers religious people who insist things are black and white...The Big Invisible Daddy made it all...period.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm |
    • Free

      GodBeliever
      You got his e-mail address? πŸ˜‰

      I don't believe 'in' the Big Bang, but I do believe that it's the best explanation for the origin of the universe presented so far. I don't need faith for that, but I think you need it in spades to believe in the Genesis or any other creation story account.

      "If you do believe in the Big Bang? Why does it allow so much evil in the world?"
      Kinda got that backwards there, don't ya fella?

      A naturally occurring universe wouldn't be governed by emotion, whereas God is described as being very emotional, supposedly even loving. Yet, if he is in control, then why the evil?

      September 16, 2011 at 12:23 am |
  11. GodBeliever

    AtheistSteve

    I take it you were there 100,000 years after the Big Bang

    Since you made your analysis stating " before 100,000 years after the Big Bang the universe was to hot and dense, filled with ionized plasma"....

    If there is Big Bang Why Does It Allow So Much Evil In The World?
    It must not be a loving big bang.

    September 15, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      The better question would be...were you there when god created this planet and mankind? Of course AtheistSteve wasn't there but at least his belief's in science make sense.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      GodBeliever

      "I take it you were there 100,000 years after the Big Bang"
      I take it you were there when Jesus rose from the dead 3 days after he died on the cross.
      See...stupid statements works both ways.

      "If there is Big Bang Why Does It Allow So Much Evil In The World?"
      Because sh.t happens....and mostly perpetrated by dimwits who believe as you do.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
    • i wonder

      @GodBeliever:
      "If there is Big Bang Why Does It Allow So Much Evil In The World?
      It must not be a loving big bang."

      No-one assigns human emotions to the Big Bang.

      Are you so love-starved that you have to look for it out there?

      September 15, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      You still don't seem to understand that atheists do not believe in ANY higher consciousness; that is deity, God, ruler or whatever you want to call it. That means that atheists do not believe that a physical event such as the Big Bang can make any conscious decisions on the amount of good and evil in the world. Neither do atheists believe that the Big Bang can be "loving" or not loving. Religious people like you are prisoners of their own inability to imagine a world without a "dad" in the sky. That doesn't mean others are. The world doesn't need to have a conscious purpose. It is beautiful enough as it is!

      September 15, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Sid

      Godbeliever, we take it that you lack basic comprehension abilities.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:51 pm |
  12. Chris Turner

    Of course he "believes" in evolution. He is European, he is intelligent, and he stands with both feet on the ground. What did the interviewer expect him to say?

    Evolution is a scientific fact. Just because something in science is called a "theory" doesn't mean it is unproven. No serious scientist would deny evolution. Evolution has been proven over and over, and is fundamental to a whole body of scientific knowledge.

    September 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm |
    • Geekalot

      Yes, this is a common ploy used by religious apologists as well as downright wacky conservative and liberal wingnuts. They deliberately conflate the common use of the word theory with the scientific meaning. Hey, I have a theory that if I shake the hand of a complete idiot my intelligence will drop 5 points. Clearly this doesn't even come close to the level of research, analysys, peer review and refining that goes into a body of scientific study that eventually leads to some measure of concensus on a given topic, say evolution for example, but its my theory and i am sticking to it!

      This is the kind of nonesense foisted on the sheeple who eagerly seek out an "authority" to reinforce their beliefs.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
  13. GodBeliever

    Reality

    Once again you speak many words as having great authority on history and the Bible. Good for you. Since you are very well-educated on these matters please share your wisdom with us and PROVIDE ONLY ONE EXAMPLE of the so-called ideas which the Bible plagiarized from older myths, contemporary religions, and the such.

    Only One Please?

    September 15, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • Al

      In the interests of saving him a moment's trouble, would you actually accept any examples he provides? If not, why should he bother placing his pearls before you?

      September 15, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • Here's a good one.

      The Flood and Noah's Ark are taken from the Gilgamesh, which itself took the flood narrative from the Atra-Hasis.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The flood of Noah is referenced by many cultures, because they are all recalling the same cataclysmic event,the true and defining version of which is recorded in the Holy Bible.It is not surprising that other cultures report a similar incident.In fact their testimonies tend to confirm that the devastating and earth changing disaster did occur.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:49 pm |
    • Really Big Squirrels Don't End Up in Pies

      herbert how come your big god guy can't do any of those big biblical events in modern days, and have us know fo sho that he is the cause? Recent tsunami doesn't count 'cause he didn't broadcast "Mine" in time; we won't count generics.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:56 pm |
    • There is no hope of enlightening those blinded by religion

      Good old herbert just cannot pass up an opportunity to prove how incredibly stupid he is.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Uh ,squirrel, I really don't know how to break it to you .If God recreated the flood,like in the days of Noah,there would only be eight survivors, you probably wouldn't be one of them,so the "evidence "wouldn' t help you at all.Actually, God promised to never again destroy the earth with a flood so you needn't worry.However the Bible teaches a return of Messiah at a time when it is like the days of Noah,but if you wait for that as "evidence" you'll probably miss out as well.God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 8:09 pm |
    • DogBeliever

      So herbert, where is the geological evidence for this flood? None has ever been found. Did God hide the evidence again?

      I can't wait for you rationalizations on this one. Should be a whopper!

      September 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @dogbeliever
      Yes! God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
    • Really Big Squirrels Don't End Up in Pies

      Herbert, you didn't answer the question. I'll try again, with simpler wording:

      Why aren't there any modern miracles, that are visibly and obviously the work of a god?

      No reasonable being should expect us to take nth generation translations of thousand-plus-year-old folk tales as proof of anything so important as a purported afterlife, So god should sort of put up or shut up, and if no put up, then Christians should desist in their claims, if you see what I mean.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:32 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Every salvation is a miracle of god, squirrel.God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Since salvation does not exist, I guess you're fresh out of proof, herbert.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:58 pm |
    • Free

      herbert
      The dating evidence would suggest that the Bible copied from earlier stories, not the other way around. Without any evidence to the contrary all you've got is an opinion, and everyone's got one of those, right?

      September 16, 2011 at 12:28 am |
    • piobairean

      Both the Atra-Hasis and Gilgamish flood myths predate the bible story of the flood.

      September 16, 2011 at 4:10 am |
  14. Realist

    They say bible is the word from god and only christians have the exclusivity of it. It means, all the ideas that was written in the bible are their own ideas and not copied or plagiarized from the other sources. But it's clear enough base on the oceans of evidences that most of their ideas were plagiarized from older myths, contemporary religions, and such. Bible orginality epic failed.

    September 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm |
    • Free

      Not all Christians though. Only a select few seem to have the gnostic understanding of who 'real' Christians actually are. In the early days of the Church Fathers they knew how to deal with such people.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
  15. Realist

    Having a faith is just like closing your eyes while walking across the street. It simply means, absolutely delusional.

    September 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • GodBeliever

      Realist

      You have no authority to define faith. You did not create faith. God created faith. This is the defintion God gives regarding faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. God says without faith it is impossible to please him because one must believe God exists and that He is rewarded of those that diligently seek him. Furthermore faith comes by hearing and reading the word of God. No other way.

      Should I believe a mere man such as yourself to define faith or the God that made the heaven and the earth and every soul including your own.

      How many heavens or earths or souls have you created? Since you speak as one which has created all things.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
    • Free

      GodBeliever
      "Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen."
      Does that work for everything unseen, like invisible pink unicorns, Santa's workshop, leprechauns, and Republican policies designed to aid the poor?

      September 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
    • Chris Turner

      "God" didn't create faith. Humans created the concept of God and faith. There is no "God". Get over it, and grow up! (Yes, I know, I know, I would ALSO love the concept of a daddy to hold my hand throughout life. Instead, I try to have a good and loving relationship with my real dad, you know, the man from whom I got half of my DNA.)

      September 15, 2011 at 7:38 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Faith is pretending that what you hope for is real and pretending that something that doesn't exist is evidence that it does exist.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:34 pm |
    • Free

      "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
      -Mark Twain

      September 16, 2011 at 12:30 am |
  16. Richard S Kaiser

    JohnR wrote me 1stly stating, "There are at least two different senses in which some modern cosmologists are amenable to the idea of multiple universes. One is that universes can pop into being like ours supposedly did and they may have different laws of physics and/or different values for the properties of their fundamental particles."

    Our abilities to fathom the depths of outer space is limited to our abilities to gather the light from far away sources. I think it's called an interferomitter (Not sure) a telescope that has many parts, each is miles away from each other, all gathering together light from specific points. When such a telescope is built and put into space, we may be able to glare upon otherly universes for the very first time! The laws of physics and also particle physics is slowly being formulated. My not being but a layperson, I am held back into hypothesizing with much clarity and in my layperson ideas, I am talking to you with litlle to hardly any formal conscript.

    In my mind, I have traveled in both directions of space, being inner and outer space places. I see them as being one and the same cosmologically speaking.

    September 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Peering further into the depths of space is also peering backward in time. There is a point where direct observation of the past history of the expanding universe becomes opaque to all radiation. Before 100,000 years after the Big Bang the universe was to hot and dense, filled with ionized plasma preventing us from being able to gather useful information from electromagnetic spectrum viewing tools. Thus we will never be able to view the boundary between this and other universes.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ AtheistSteve,,,,, "Thus we will never be able to view the boundary between this and other universes."

      If all universes were established at the same moments in time within the Cosmos, then would not we be able to see and/or peer upon their stellar objects? The Hubble space telescope homed in on a blackness for I think 8 straight hours and to the glee of astronomers, they were given a picture of galaxies so very very far away.

      The "boundaries of universes" will yet be the $64,000 question. Our viewable aspects of stardom night skies is only held back by our inabilities to create the next super-telescope! πŸ™‚

      September 15, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      You're still missing the point. The further away an object viewed is the longer it took the light from said object to reach us and thus it is a view of an earlier period of our own universe. We are only aware of our universes beginnings by extrapolation of the movements of galaxies within it. The Hubble deep field photos show early 1st generation large elliptical galaxies from about 12 billion years ago. We are inextricably bound within our own universe and it would require faster-than-light travel to physically approach the boundary of our universe to see beyond it. Think about it like this. If you were at the bottom of the ocean and you wished to view the surface you would need to travel there by taking your submarine up but since the universe is expanding, ergo the ocean constantly getting deeper with more water being added to the top faster than you can rise you would never get there.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:28 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      I think you're forgetting the background microwave radiation that is the left-over light from the Big Bang.
      We can see it now. We are inside the Big Bang. There is no point we can look to because we are inside it.
      The whole space-time continuum IS the Big Bang. It's all expanding in all directions. Going back in time, we would see it contract all around us until every bit of matter and energy were too close to see anything.
      Extrapolation. It's what's for dinner, Richard.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
  17. Richard S Kaiser

    Laughing wrote me on Thursday, September 15, 2011 at 2:18 pm, stating, @Richard, VY Canis Majoris is the star I'm referring to. How neat right?! I mean, the size and scope of this singular star is gargantuan, and it's the biggest one we've found but there could easily be a bigger one out there. Googled Fractal Cosmology, it's a little out there but I think it's a solid premise, I mean fractals do naturally occur, so why no on a grand scale?"

    Laughing, Sorry about not posting sooner but I had a few errands to run.

    I agree wholeheartedly that VY Canis Majoris is one big monster of a star/sun! As for Fractal Cosmology, I feel your missing my gist which is, "Which cosmos was created 1st, the atomic cosmos or our celestial cosmos?" The answer should be obvious. The atomic cosmos. The celestial cosmos is but an afterthought regarding intelligent designing. The "Beings" that inhabit the atomic cosmos are not like the Beings and/or life forms that inhabit the celestial cosmos which we are from. We too are just an afterthought made manifest by that which comes across as being gods but they too have a limited life span and they too are subject to one day dying but, they live a great deal longer than we do. Yet there is where logistical timeframes come into play.

    Upon the atomic cosmos time flies by at a rate say,,,,, 1,000 years to our one day and likewise the outer realm of our celestial cosmos is in a time period where one day is as a 1,000 years of our time. We are stuck in the middle so to say. To say that all of this world's life harbors inside cellularized atomic universes establishes us as a living cosmos and in our consumptions we give to all life inside the needed resources to live out their lives with little need to search for sustanence.

    I am just writing and babbling right now Laughing. It would be so much easier if CNN would have "open mike night", πŸ™‚

    September 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      If your search hard enough the singularity can be found at the bottom of the barrel of a shotgun. Go, look!

      September 15, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
    • TruthPrevails

      @Richard: you could always call in to one of the many Atheist talk shows if you want the open-mike type thing. Ask An Atheist and The Atheist Experience are two such shows

      September 15, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
    • Richard S Kaiser

      @ Awkward Situations,,,, Eat at any good muff dive places lately? yummy,, πŸ™‚

      @ TruthPrevails,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Was just a thought TP,,,,,,, Thanks anyway for the go to here for open mike,,,,,,,,,, I'll pass,,, πŸ™‚

      September 15, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      @Richard S Kaiser: Not lately. And you? Wait.. don't answer that. Watching it on adult video doesn't count.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Richard, your "atomic" vs "cosmic" universes do not make any sense. Why don't you define these strange labels you have put on whatever it is so that we can see just how messed up you are in your head?

      September 15, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      whoops! Meant "celestial" instead of "cosmic" even though that distinction doesn't really add much to anything....

      September 15, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  18. David Johnson

    Jesus wasn't in grave for 3 days and 3 nights:

    1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection.

    1 Corinthians 15:4 "4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"

    Matthew 12:40 – Jesus said, that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights.

    Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 2 days at the most. Or, if you count Friday and Sunday as entire days, then you could get 3 days and 2 nights. This is a gimme though. The Mary's went to the grave at sunrise and it was empty.

    Obviously, the fundies spin this like a pinwheel. I have seen explanations like: Jesus was actually crucified on Wednesday or maybe Thursday; The prophesy actually means 12 hour days, and not 24 hour days; The partial days are counted as full days. This one is true, but still doesn't add up.

    At any rate, the crucifixion day and number of days and nights Jesus spent in the grave, is disputed.

    It looks very much like, that Jesus was not in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. The prophecy was not fulfilled.

    Cheers!

    September 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Good one. I doubt any Christian could explain that little error in their core beliefs. The few times I've talked about it like you have, the Christians never respond. Good luck on getting a response on that.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • DamianKnight

      @David,

      I'm not sure where you're getting your scripture. Jesus said on the third day He would rise from the grave. Matthew 20:18-19: We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”

      And that's what happened. Jesus was arrested and crucified on Friday. He died after three to six hours (difficult to tell) on Friday. Then Joseph of Arimathea asked if they could have the body so it could be buried before the Sabbath (the Sabbath for Jews is on Saturday) and so they did. On the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday) (Luke 24:1), they discovered the tomb was empty. Jesus rose on Sunday. So he was dead on Friday and Saturday and rose on "the third day."

      September 15, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
    • Free

      DamianKnight
      I think maybe you're forgetting that Jews count Sabbath as starting at sundown Friday. Sundown Saturday would then be one full day by Jewish reckoning, and sundown Sunday just two. So, it can't be argued that Jesus was dead for three full days before rising. Does that help?

      September 15, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      ...as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish ,so the Son of Man will be...
      In ancient Hebrew the phrase being rendered into English could be more accurately translated as a couple of days,that is more than a day but less than a week.The problem here is david is more intent on undermining Gods Holy Word ,than interested in truth.For those looking for a literal three days try looking to the Essenes calendar system.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Three days and three nights in Hell. That's where Jesus was supposedly spending his time after death.

      You can't count Friday because he was executed at dusk on Friday evening.
      That leaves the Sabbath (Fri nite and Saturday until dusk) as the first day.
      From Saturday at dusk to Sunday at dusk, that is the second day.
      Monday he would have popped up like toast but he was dead. There was no Jesus around to raise him from the dead. LOL

      Plus, he was supposed to be in the ground for three days and nights, which would make him appear on the FOURTH day, which would have been TUESDAY.
      But he supposedly said he'd show up on the third day which would have been Monday. And his body was never found.
      Huh. How about that little bit? Where's his body? Up in the air? Give me a break. They probably destroyed any evidence to make sure no one could gainsay them when they claimed they'd seen this dead man walking around.
      The whole thing stinks.

      I think the only reason Christians like to wiggle around about having him pop up on Sunday is because the early Church wanted to distance the Church from the Jews.
      They didn't want people getting confused about two different Jewish cults going to Temple on the same day.
      They struggled mightily to make it look like Sunday was the new Sabbath, but Jesus never said anything about making a new Sabbath.
      Sunday is a totally made-up Sabbath. Total bunk. The early church's hatred of Jews at that point shows up quite clearly when you read between the lines. They went against "God's" commandment to keep the Sabbath holy by making a new Sabbath. Biiig mistake there. It shows criminal intent.

      And Sunday, being the start of the week, is more aesthetically pleasing for a cult that is making a "new beginning".
      How poetic to have a new Sabbath and that it happens to be Sunday?

      Yet the math does not match. The bible clearly states he was executed at dusk on Passover evening. Everything got conveniently dark and mysterious, too, at that time. hmmm.
      Jesus was a Jew. He wasn't going to change the rules about the Sabbath. He was nuts but probably not that nuts. Nope, that would have been his "followers" who took his words into their own hands and changed it to what they wished he had said. That's why so many words attributed to Jesus don't make sense and even contradict other things he'd supposedly said.

      After all the melodrama was over, and some years had passed, Paul, who says he was a Jewish Inquisitor, took over this cult he says he had been persecuting.
      All we have are his words and the words of others he co-opted into this easy-to-manage cult.

      It's like if Cheney wrote a book or something. I don't know why no one is skeptical of anything written by anyone after all that.
      They could have made it up from scratch and no one would be the wiser. There is nothing to the contrary anywhere. No reason to believe anything in the bible at all.

      Monday is the day. Not Sunday. Or maybe even Tuesday. A Jewish day begins at dusk. That's when he was executed.
      But since the whole mess is total BS anyway, this is just yanking the chains of the delusional idiots known as Christians.
      No need to show them the truth. When they pray and no one answers, they will figure it out or not. There is no god.

      September 15, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      DJ, I found a rather good, although academic series on Utube. It's long, but very interesting. Totally debunks all the BS. The first one is at : http://www(dot)youtube.com/watch?v=ko3DfS3Of88&feature=related

      September 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • Bucky Ball

      Actually the gospels contradict each other with regard to Yeshua's death. In Mark 14:12, the diciples ask him where to prepare the Passover meal for THAT evening, the day of Preparation for Passover, and eat it that evening, (the Last Supper). the next day he is put to death, on the day of Passover. In John the trial before Pilate was the day of preparation, not the day of. The days are off by an entire day from each other. So when do you start counting the three days from ? Who cares, anyway ?

      September 15, 2011 at 11:35 pm |
    • Navin R. Johnson (not related to DJ)

      "I know we've only known each other four weeks and three days, but to me it seems like nine weeks and five days.

      The first day seemed like a week and the second day seemed like five days.

      And the third day seemed like a week again and the fourth day seemed like eight days.

      And the fifth day you went to see your mother and that seemed just like a day, and then you came back and later on the sixth day, in the evening, when we saw each other, that started seeming like two days, so in the evening it seemed like two days spilling over into the next day and that started seeming like four days, so at the end of the sixth day on into the seventh day, it seemed like a total of five days.

      And the sixth day seemed like a week and a half. I have it written down, but I can show it to you tomorrow if you want to see it."

      September 15, 2011 at 11:41 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      Thanks for that completely useless post, Navin. Good meds, eh?

      September 16, 2011 at 4:29 am |
    • G'wan

      Jimmy G...

      The Navin Johnson bit is a silly scene from Steve Martin's movie, "The Jerk". Hilarious.

      September 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @DamianKnight

      I am sorry, I did not see your post until now. The way the comments are displayed, I rarely go back through the old ones.

      At any rate, I double checked my quotes and I was right.

      Jesus speaking:
      40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. – Matthew 12:40 (King James Version)

      So as you can see, Jesus made this prediction. The prediction was not fulfilled.

      1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection.

      Cheers!

      September 22, 2011 at 10:35 pm |
  19. AtheistSteve

    To Quote a definition said but perhaps not coined by Michael Nugent. "Atheists: the arrogant belief that the universe was not created only for us." Sarcasm..I love it:)
    In any case the stance we obviously support is far and away more humble than the theist position where human kind is foisted above all else(excepting God of course). The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelmingly affirmative and even if it wasn't that still doesn't add support to the biblical creation story. In fact the use of God isn't explanatory at all. If you believe God was the creative force behind everything you are still left not being any closer to explaining HOW it was done. You think you have successfully described the WHO and maybe even the WHY. The problem becomes evident once you apply the same thinking to let's say rain falling from the sky. Remember that for long periods of prehistory the rain was caused by God/Gods. They believed they knew the WHO and for reasons pretty obvious the WHY was to nourish the land and crops. Sacrifices were offered to plead God to bring rain etc.etc. Now we understand to mechanisms behind the water cycle and HOW it rains is explainable without having to appeal to WHO or WHY at all. God is not responsible for causing rain and rain doesn't fall with INTENT.

    September 15, 2011 at 5:07 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      sp- the mechanisms

      September 15, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • GodPot

      "In fact the use of God isn't explanatory at all"

      Well sure it is, at least as long as your definition of "God" is mostly undefined and mysterious, and you use it to explain anything currently beyond your understanding. You might as well pray to "X".

      September 15, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  20. hesalive

    Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord.

    September 15, 2011 at 4:37 pm |
    • William Demuth

      And every Altar Boys bung hole will bleed.

      September 15, 2011 at 4:49 pm |
    • David Johnson

      No real evidence, Jesus ever actually existed...?

      Cheers!

      September 15, 2011 at 5:03 pm |
    • Devil's Advocate

      > Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is lord.

      You know, it's odd. God loves us and wants us to be with him in heaven forever. He doesn't want us to burn.

      Why doesn't he prove his existence and save everyone? Isn't that a bit weird?

      September 15, 2011 at 5:14 pm |
    • Awkward Situations

      God likes his humans to be crispity crunchity so he can snack on us as he watches us destroy each other.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • BRC

      Doesn't that violate free will? Will he force everyone to bow?

      September 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm |
    • David Johnson

      @Devil's Advocate

      The Christian god is a hidden god.

      Christians claim their god is Omnipotent ( all powerful), Omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good).
      1). If god is Omnibenevolent, He would WANT every human to believe in Him.

      The bible says He does:

      2 Peter 3:9
      9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. King James Version (KJV)

      1 Timothy 2:4
      4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. King James Version (KJV)

      2.) If god is Omniscient, then He would KNOW exactly how to convince anyone and everyone that He exists.

      3.) If god is Omnipotent, then He would be ABLE to convince anybody and everybody that He exists.

      Yet, ~ 67% of the world's population are not Christians.

      Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.

      Cheers!

      September 15, 2011 at 5:29 pm |
    • *frank*

      @hesalive
      "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess"
      Seems like you have some BDSM issues you're in denial about and need to work out, which is fine, but we really don't need to hear about it.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      WD, you just keep crackin me up! XD

      September 15, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      hesalive is just Heisgod / BillinFL
      Always with the same "every tongue.." etc. bullcrap.
      He's got a tongue fetish and a knee fetish. He's sick.

      September 15, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • Sue

      Awkward Situations
      The 'snacking' comes in heaven, where God consumes souls for energy. πŸ˜‰

      September 15, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
    • Sue

      hesalive
      Of course you could force people to do that, like they did the heretics and pagans back in the beginning, but that still wouldn't prove that God exists.

      September 15, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • GodPot

      You know, it's odd. God loves us and wants us to be with him in heaven forever. He doesn't want us to burn. Why doesn't he prove his existence and save everyone? Isn't that a bit weird?"

      It is odd. I think most Christians don't want to dwell on that point, and come up with excuses like we are to unclean to be presented before God or they think of this wonderful life we somehow were born into is merely a test for some future reward in a cloudy place where our amazing human bodies would have no use or purpose. It's pretty convenient to invent something like "If you look upon him, you will surely die!!" when trying to sell your God to the sceptical masses who might have wanted some proof before handing over their money.

      September 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm |
    • pwned

      GodPot,

      Maybe the "real" "God" just wants to guarantee a sufficient amount of gullible sycophants to peel gr.apes for those of us who used logic and reason to try to figure things out?!

      September 15, 2011 at 7:29 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The answer key to david johnson posts
      1.start with a false statement( or lie)
      2.throw in a couple of misrepresented theories disguised as facts or evidence
      3.big drum roll conclusion that has no relevance to the points being offered
      God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 7:59 pm |
    • Really Big Squirrels Don't End Up in Pies

      herbert, sounds like you are really after this david johnson's ass. Are you a priest or something?

      September 15, 2011 at 8:03 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Fact check squirrel, God bless.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • fred

      David Johnson
      Stop with the lie "No real evidence, Jesus ever actually existed...?" You can say he was not God or that he was just a teacher that some say did miracles, but, you cannot say there is no real evidence. If you believe that then Join Iran and say no Holocaust happened.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm |
    • Really Big Squirrels Don't End Up in Pies

      Herbert, I'd like a fat check, thanks. My bank account could use it. But no fat chicks please.

      September 15, 2011 at 8:35 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      No problem squirrel ,just post your real name,address ,id numbers and all account info and we'll get right on that.God bless

      September 15, 2011 at 8:59 pm |
    • Jimmy G

      fred
      herbert

      Your "god" does not exist. Your "Jesus" probably did not exist. Genesis is baldfaced BS. There was no Garden of Eden where your "god" walked around and played peek-a-boo with his nekkid "creations".
      Not even prayer works.
      In short, there is no, and I mean NO, reason to believe in your "god"....at ALL.
      There is no god, no sin, no "savior" needed, no miracles, no salvation, no "holy" spirit, and no proof of any of it having existed at any point in time throughout recorded history.
      Everything opposes religion. The whole universe is proof that your religion is BS, that your "god" does not exist.

      But of course you will close your eyes and shut your ears, for your religion has not only made you blind and deaf, it has made you worship your own blindness and deafness until you are lost to reason, lost to common sense, lost to real life.
      You live in a fantasy world that is laid over your perceptions of this universe. Your existence is filtered and falsely guided.
      All you have is other people who are as blind and dumb as you are. You surround yourself with them and seek to create more. You are religious believers. You have no business running anything that requires common sense or interacting with people who do not share your delusion.

      I banish you to your own fantasies and myths, there to rot until you are dead. Then you will not know how wrong you were, for there is nothing after death that is known to exist. No one has ever returned. Your "Jesus" is still dead.

      September 15, 2011 at 10:12 pm |
    • fred

      David Johnson
      Jimmy G
      You guys need to stop with the lies. You cannot say Jesus did not exist. You can claim he was not God or nothing more than a religious teacher that some claim performed miraculous acts.
      27 New Testament books written by people who either witnessed the events or had first hand information. The Gemara of the Jewish Talmud refer to Jesus. Flavius Josephus a noted Jewish historian wrote of Jesus in his famous Antiquities of the Jews. Antiquity historian, Cornelius Tacitus. wrote of Jesus. Archeologists have confirmed many sites mentioned in the New Testament. Take a trip to the Holy Land and walk where Jesus did, visit the archeology.

      September 16, 2011 at 1:19 am |
    • Jimmy G

      fred, all you have is very shaky second-hand accounts that don't even match up in all the right places.

      Tell me, fred, where are the words written by Jesus himself? Where is anything written by Jesus, who was so well-educated?
      Why isn't there anything by Jesus himself anywhere? He hated scribes so he was illiterate maybe?
      And no knowledge of the future at all even with his prophesying. How do you explain that?
      He was born of human parents. It is so easy to get a virgin pregnant with hymen intact that I marvel at anyone who thinks it's a miracle in this day and age. Whoever the father was, Joseph was very old and Mary extremely young.
      Yet Christians sometimes mock Muslims because Mohammad liked young girls, too. What hypocrisy. Your god likes em young, fred. How can you deny something like that? You can't.
      So Jesus was raised by Joseph, supposedly a Levite carpenter, and Mary, who kept having babies all over the place.
      Where is anything he made, wrote, and where is the proof that it is not a forgery? Oh, wait, you don't have a single thing created by Jesus who liked to make mystical pronouncements in a charismatic way.
      His family and hometown knew he was full of crap. He even said so himself, right? Maybe he did exist. There is nothing to say he did though.
      Maybe you should support scientific research. It's the only way a time machine of any sort is likely to be built to go find out for sure what happened all those years ago, since he didn't leave anything written down.
      But where's the merest suggestion of real proof? There is absolutely nothing biblical or contemporary or historical that proves he existed. Heresay is not proof. Gossip and half-remembered events do not a son of a god make.
      You not only need proof that Jesus existed, you need proof that your god exists. You have neither.
      Everything points to the opposite, in fact.
      If Jesus existed, he was not the son of a god, nor was he supernatural in any way. He had no special knowledge or insight.
      He could not see the future, nor did he know what your "god" was thinking, doing, planning, or anything.
      Why? Because your "god" does not exist. We have all the negative proof anyone could ask for.
      So Jesus could not be "saving" anyone or ruling anything because he was just a messed up believer who thought he had all the answers in a religion without merit or truth. He was also a heretic and blasphemer.
      To say he had a "messiah" complex is very likely and ironic as hell.

      September 16, 2011 at 3:42 am |
    • David Johnson

      @fred

      "Stop with the lie "No real evidence, Jesus ever actually existed...?" You can say he was not God or that he was just a teacher that some say did miracles, but, you cannot say there is no real evidence. If you believe that then Join Iran and say no Holocaust happened."

      It's not a lie. And the Holocaust did happen. We have EYEWITNESS testimony, bodies buried in mass graves, orders written by the Germans. We have nothing that proves Jesus ever existed.

      There were no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. The Gospels were written by god knows who in the third person. The Gospels were written with an agenda i.e., Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.

      We know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the gospels we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
      -Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University, (The Gnostic Gospels)

      The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels.
      -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)

      Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
      -C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)

      There are no known secular writings about Jesus, that aren't forgeries, later insertions, or hearsay. NONE!

      Most of the supposed authors lived AFTER Jesus was dead. Can you say hearsay?

      Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) a contemporary Jewish historian, never wrote a word about Jesus. This is odd, since Philo wrote broadly on the politics and theologies around the Mediterranean.

      Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 BCE – 65 CE) A.K.A. Seneca the Younger. A contemporary of Jesus wrote extensively on many subjects and people. But he didn't write a word about a Jesus.

      Gaius Plinius Secundus (23 AD – August 25, 79 AD), better known as Pliny the Elder, was a Roman author, naturalist, and natural philosopher. Plinius wrote "Naturalis Historia", an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time. There is no mention of a Jesus.

      The area in and surrounding Jerusalem served, in fact, as the center of education and record keeping for the Jewish people. The Romans, of course, also kept many records. Moreover, the gospels mention scribes many times, not only as followers of Jesus but the scribes connected with the high priests. And nothing about the Jesus. Nada! Not even something chiseled on a wall or carved into a tree like: "Jesus Loves Mary Magdalene" .

      We don't even have a wooden shelf that Jesus might have built. Or anything written by Jesus. God incarnate, and we don't even have a Mother's day card signed by Him.

      The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention Jesus or have any New Testament scripture.

      Jesus, if he existed, was not considered important enough to write about by any contemporary person. The myth hadn't had a chance to flourish.

      Paul's writings were the first, about Jesus. But, Paul's writing was done 25 to 30 years after Jesus was dead. In a primitive, ultra-supersti_tious society, 25 years is a lot of time for a myth to grow. Twenty-five years was most of the average person's lifespan in the 1st Century.

      Some people feel that Paul, not Jesus, is the real father of what most Christians believe today (Pauline Christianity).
      Paul never actually met Jesus. His knowledge and faith was the result of hearsay and an epileptic "vision".

      Questions on the Crucifixion story:

      "Likewise also the chief priests mocking said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others; himself he cannot save." Mark 15:31

      "Let Christ the King of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and believe..." Mark 15:32

      It would appear, that the chief priests are admitting that Jesus "saved" others. If they knew this, then there is no reason for them to demand that Jesus descend from the cross, in order for them to believe. They already admitted to knowing of Jesus' "miracles".

      This is just an embellishment by Mark. A work of fiction possibly constructed to make it appear that some Old Testament "prediction" was fulfilled. Like:
      "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting." – Isaiah 50:6

      Here is another:

      1 Corinthian 15:14-17 – Paul says Christianity lives or dies on the Resurrection.
      1 Corinthians 15:4 "4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures"
      Matthew 12:40 – Jesus said, that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights.
      Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 2 days at the most. Or, if you count Friday and Sunday as entire days, then you could get 3 days and 2 nights. This is a gimme though. The Mary's went to the grave at sunrise and it was empty.
      Obviously, the fundies spin this like a pinwheel. I have seen explanations like: Jesus was actually crucified on Wednesday or maybe Thursday; The prophesy actually means 12 hour days, and not 24 hour days; The partial days are counted as full days. This one is true, but still doesn't add up.
      At any rate, the crucifixion day and number of days and nights Jesus spent in the grave, is disputed.
      It looks very much like, that Jesus was not in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights. The prophecy was not fulfilled.

      And what of this?:

      Jesus had healed a woman on the Sabbath:

      Luke 13 31:33 KJV
      31The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

      32And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

      33Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

      Note that Jesus is saying, it is impossible for a prophet (Himself) to be killed outside of Jerusalem.

      Yet, Jesus WAS killed outside Jerusalem.

      Calvary or Golgotha was the site, outside of ancient Jerusalem’s early first century walls, at which the crucifixion of Jesus is said to have occurred. OOoopsie!

      And there is this:

      According to Luke 23:44-45, there occurred "about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour, and the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst."

      Yet not a single secular mention of a three hour ecliptic event got recorded. 'Cause it didn't happen!

      Mathew 27 51:53
      51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
      How come nobody wrote about zombies running through the cities? 'Cause it is all b.s.

      An interesting note:

      "The same phenomena and portents of the sudden darkness at the sixth hour, a strong earthquake, rent stones, a temple entrance broken in two, and the rising of the dead have been reported by multiple ancient writers for the death of Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 BC." – Sources Wikipedia (John T. Ramsey & A. Lewis Licht, The Comet of 44 B.C. and Caesar's Funeral Games, Atlanta 1997, p. 99–107

      Hmmm...
      If you can't even believe the crucifixion story how likely is the resurrection account to be true? In a book that is a mix of fiction and "fact", how do you know which is which? Especially, since all of the bible seems very unlikely and does not fit with the reality we see around us.?

      If Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, who died for man's redemption, then this would be the most important event in the history of man.

      Having gone to the trouble of impregnating a human and being born god incarnate and dying for mankind's sins, why wouldn't god have ensured there was tons of evidence that this was true? Multiple Writings by contemporary eyewitnesses – Jews and Romans and Greeks.

      You are going to want to say that there IS lots of evidence, but look at reality: There are way more people, in the world, who are not Christians (67%) than who are (33%). Obviously, the evidence is not adequate to convince even a majority of the world's people.

      Cheers!

      September 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.