home
RSS
February 27th, 2013
11:35 AM ET

Fill in the blank: Jesus is____

(CNN)– Justin Bieber's pastor, Judah Smith, says his book 'Jesus Is" challenges people to have a discussion about who Jesus was.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Jesus

soundoff (2,732 Responses)
  1. Austin

    10 “For as the rain comes down, and the snow from heaven,
    And do not return there,
    But water the earth,
    And make it bring forth and bud,
    That it may give seed to the sower
    And bread to the eater,
    11 So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
    It shall not return to Me void,
    But it shall accomplish what I please,
    And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.

    March 1, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • Austin

      Isaiah 55:10-11

      March 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • In Santa we trust

      Well we know that's wrong. Water does return to form clouds. Another fail for your goatherder myths.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:04 pm |
    • Bill Deacon

      Does earth have clouds?

      March 1, 2013 at 3:43 pm |
  2. Matt Kovach

    jesus is ...a myth

    March 1, 2013 at 11:26 am |
    • Chad

      How do you know that to be true?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Science

      Becuase of you Chad read this blog.

      Peace

      March 1, 2013 at 11:59 am |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      On Jesus being a myth:

      Here's the thing about Jesus. It is entirely possible (and indeed probable) that a man named Joshua bar Joseph lived in present day israel and had accrued a small group of followers for claiming to be a prophet (or god, or whatever). However, when people say "Jesus is a myth" they aren't saying that some iteration of the jesus didn't exist, they are saying that the one detailed in the bible is most likely mythical. Sort of like when you see a movie that's based on true events, it doesn't mean that it happened exactly as the movie is portrayed, but rather people developed a movie from the barebones of the details from the story.

      To put it in simple terms: Man named Joshua who is the basis for Jesus, being a roaming preacher who disagreed with the religious leadership – most likely true (There were lots of different people who fit this description)

      The jesus who supposedly performed miracles, was divine, has quote after quote attributed to him, etc.... probably a myth.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:06 pm |
    • JMEF

      Chad
      Why do you accept the god of Isreal as being real?

      March 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Science

      Hey JMEF

      Looks like Chadie is dog paddling in his soup below. (LOL)

      Paece

      March 2, 2013 at 7:03 am |
  3. Terry

    Mithra is ... the bread of life.

    March 1, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Chad

      What is your evidence for Mithra?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • .

      See pages 1 and 2 of this blog.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:28 am |

    • What evidence that Mithra is not real?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:32 am |
    • Eric G

      Mithra must be real because most of the jesus story was stolen from the story of mithra. Without Mithra, there is no jesus story.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:34 am |
    • Chad

      Putting to death the comparisons between Jesus and Mithra

      Claim 1: Like Jesus, Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave. His birth was also attended by shepherds.
      Many Christians are well aware that there is no Biblical basis for setting the date of the birth of Jesus on December 25th. History shows that this date was introduced as significant to Christ later by the post-apostolic church, no doubt influenced by the multiplicity of sacred festivals occurring at this time. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was not born of a virgin in a cave. In fact, Mithras was said to have been born, fully grown, from solid rock; the event leaving a cavity behind. There was no mention of a virgin. Interestingly, the story continues to describe Mithras being helped out of the rock by shepherds, who offer him a pick from their flock. Yet according to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was created prior to the creation of mankind. Consequently, the Mithraic “shepherds” cannot be legitimately compared to those of the Christian tradition. Lastly, the earliest existing record of this narrative is from around 100 years after the manuscripts of the New Testament, leaving no room for claims that the Christian tradition copied the story and attributed it to Jesus. (Note also that the later Persian Mithraic traditions recount his conception through the incestual copulation of the god Ahura-Mazda and his mother. The Christian virgin birth story is principally concerned with the humanity of Mary and God’s role in the creation of Jesus through her. There is no parallel between this and the Mithraic story.)

      Claim 2 Mithras was also considered a great traveling teacher and master.
      This particular attribute is probably one of the most common identifiers of just about every spiritual leader in history. However, there is no mention in Mithraic tradition of Mithras being an itinerant teacher like Jesus. If this claim is to be taken seriously as evidence that Christian tradition appropriated from Mithraic tradition, one must also take into account the travels and teachings of other spiritual figures like Buddha, Krishna, Muhammed, etc.

      Claim 3 Mithras had 12 disciples.
      The Persian Mithra was often as sociated with the god Varuna, such that one might infer that they were considered a pair. However, in this tradition Mithra is short 10 companions. In the Roman tradition, Mithras was accompanied by two ent ities, created after his own image, named Cautes and Catopatres. They have been said to represent day and ni ght or spring and fall or life and death. Mithras was also a ssociated with the snake, the dog, the lion, and the scorpion, likely due to the astrological origin of the Roman tradition. Still, Mithras’ companions only add up to 6 at most, taking all into account. Some claim that a Mithraic stone carving, which depicts the famous bull scene with one vertical row of six images on each side, proves the “12 disciples” connection. However, most current Mithraic scholarship attributes these to zodiac representations. In addition to acknowledging that since the carving itself dates to well after the time of Jesus, any connections to the Christian tradition of 12 disciples would have to implicate Mithraism as the copycat, not Christianity. In the other direction, one would have to claim that Christianity stole the number twelve from astrology- likely a much more difficult case to make.

      Claim 4 Mithras offered eternal life to his followers.
      Like the “traveling teacher” connection, this claim no more implicates Christianity as it does just about every religious tradition that posits life after death. Incidentally, the only specific mention of a Mithraic offer of eternal life to his followers exists in a piece of writing dated to 200 A.D., which has been translated, “and us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood.” In Mithraic tradition, the blood is not the blood of Mithras, but that of the bull he slaughtered, and “saved” referred to being approved to ascend through other levels toward immortality. It was clearly not the same type of salvation that is taught in Christian theology.

      Claim 5: Mithras performed miracles.
      While both the Iranian Mithra and the Roman Mithras traditions recount acts of great power done by Mithra(s), this is hardly an incriminating fact. Like the teaching and offering of immortality, this is another common attribute of any religious figure. To make this claim worthwhile, one would have to show similarities in type of miracle (i.e. Mithras walked on water, healed the blind, or raised the dead).

      Claim 6 Mithras sacrificed himself for mankind.
      Some Mithraic scholars have tried to depict Mithras and the bull he had slain as one and the same, construing the story to represent that Mithras gave his own life. However, the narrative in no way suggests this. At best, Mithras could be considered heroic for his victory over the bull, though more likely is the modern interpretation that the bull slaying story corresponded to astrological themes. However, this has no comparison to the Christian claim that Jesus died as atonement for the sins of mankind.

      Claim 7 Mithras was buried in a tomb, and after three days, He rose again.
      In Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian writes, “if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crow.” This is the only reference from which some Mithraic scholars claim a correlation between Mithraic and Christian traditions. Unfortunately, having been written after the New Testament, there is no evidence that what it describes predates Christianity. Nor is there really any compelling aspect to Tertullian’s description that would indicate that these practices were authentic to Mithraism or even appropriately compared to Christian tradition.

      Claim 8 Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
      There is no evidence for this saying being attributed to Mithras. Scholars have, however, found this saying attributed to Zarathustra, though in a medieval docu ment (remember that Zarathustra, the founding prophet of Zoroastrianism, is thought to have lived some time around 2000 B.C.). Though followers of Mithras were known to have fellowship meals, at which was eaten bread, water, wine and meat, such circ umstances were common to meals shared by many people in many different contexts.

      Conclusions
      It should be emphasized that none of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus can be shown to apply to the Persian Mithra, but only to the Roman Mithraic tradition, which did not really flourish until after the time of the New Testament. That said, the alleged connections are quite dubious, as I explained above. In fact, no archeological evidence for this tradition can be argued to exist from any earlier than A.D. 90. This seems to suggest that the re-emergence of Mithras in the Roman context preserved the name of the Persian deity, yet adopted a new set of traditions more closely linked to the many mystery religions of the time. In any case, the overall Mithraic tradition should actually be thought of as two distinct movements, having little to do with one another beyond having a god of the same name.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:36 am |
    • .

      Oh look Chad's copying and pasting from the xtian sites again, they're liars!

      March 1, 2013 at 11:54 am |
    • Fact

      Mithra
      Was born of a virgin on December 25th, in a cave, attended by shepherds
      Was considered a great traveling teacher and master
      Had 12 companions or disciples
      Promised his followers immortality
      Performed miracles
      Sacrificed himself for world peace
      Was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again
      Was celebrated each year at the time of His resurrection (later to become Easter)
      Was called “the Good Shepherd”
      Was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
      Was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
      Celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)

      March 1, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • Really?

      As the incarnation of Ahura-Mazda on earth, Mithras's job was to be the "judger of souls." He labored to protect the souls of the righteous from the demonic hoard of Ahriman. Persian tradition said Mithras was the one born of Anahita, the immaculate virgin called "the Mother of God." She conceived him from the seed of Zoroaster (later called, Zarathustra by the Greeks) that had been preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the province of Sistan in Persia. Called "the Light of the World," Mithras was the mediator between heaven and Earth. Born in midwinter, he remained celibate all his life.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • Chad

      A more complete refutation...

      Putting to death the comparisons between Jesus and Mithra

      Claim 1: Like Jesus, Mithras was born of a virgin on December 25th in a cave. His birth was also attended by shepherds.
      Truth: Many Christians are well aware that there is no Biblical basis for setting the date of the birth of Jesus on December 25th. History shows that this date was introduced as significant to Christ later by the post-apostolic church, no doubt influenced by the multiplicity of sacred festivals occurring at this time. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was not born of a virgin in a cave. In fact, Mithras was said to have been born, fully grown, from solid rock; the event leaving a cavity behind. There was no mention of a virgin. Interestingly, the story continues to describe Mithras being helped out of the rock by shepherds, who offer him a pick from their flock. Yet according to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was created prior to the creation of mankind. Consequently, the Mithraic “shepherds” cannot be legitimately compared to those of the Christian tradition. Lastly, the earliest existing record of this narrative is from around 100 years after the manuscripts of the New Testament, leaving no room for claims that the Christian tradition copied the story and attributed it to Jesus. (Note also that the later Persian Mithraic traditions recount his conception through the incestual copulation of the god Ahura-Mazda and his mother. The Christian virgin birth story is principally concerned with the humanity of Mary and God’s role in the creation of Jesus through her. There is no parallel between this and the Mithraic story.)

      Claim 2 Mithras was also considered a great traveling teacher and master.
      Truth: This particular attribute is probably one of the most common identifiers of just about every spiritual leader in history. However, there is no mention in Mithraic tradition of Mithras being an itinerant teacher like Jesus. If this claim is to be taken seriously as evidence that Christian tradition appropriated from Mithraic tradition, one must also take into account the travels and teachings of other spiritual figures like Buddha, Krishna, Muhammed, etc.

      Claim 3 Mithras had 12 disciples.
      Truth: The Persian Mithra was often as sociated with the god Varuna, such that one might infer that they were considered a pair. However, in this tradition Mithra is short 10 companions. In the Roman tradition, Mithras was accompanied by two ent ities, created after his own image, named Cautes and Catopatres. They have been said to represent day and ni ght or spring and fall or life and death. Mithras was also a ssociated with the snake, the dog, the lion, and the scorpion, likely due to the astrological origin of the Roman tradition. Still, Mithras’ companions only add up to 6 at most, taking all into account. Some claim that a Mithraic stone carving, which depicts the famous bull scene with one vertical row of six images on each side, proves the “12 disciples” connection. However, most current Mithraic scholarship attributes these to zodiac representations. In addition to acknowledging that since the carving itself dates to well after the time of Jesus, any connections to the Christian tradition of 12 disciples would have to implicate Mithraism as the copycat, not Christianity. In the other direction, one would have to claim that Christianity stole the number twelve from astrology- likely a much more difficult case to make.

      Claim 4 Mithras offered eternal life to his followers.
      Truth: Like the “traveling teacher” connection, this claim no more implicates Christianity as it does just about every religious tradition that posits life after death. Incidentally, the only specific mention of a Mithraic offer of eternal life to his followers exists in a piece of writing dated to 200 A.D., which has been translated, “and us, too, you saved by spilling the eternal blood.” In Mithraic tradition, the blood is not the blood of Mithras, but that of the bull he slaughtered, and “saved” referred to being approved to ascend through other levels toward immortality. It was clearly not the same type of salvation that is taught in Christian theology.

      Claim 5: Mithras performed miracles.
      Truth: While both the Iranian Mithra and the Roman Mithras traditions recount acts of great power done by Mithra(s), this is hardly an incriminating fact. Like the teaching and offering of immortality, this is another common attribute of any religious figure. To make this claim worthwhile, one would have to show similarities in type of miracle (i.e. Mithras walked on water, healed the blind, or raised the dead).

      Claim 6 Mithras sacrificed himself for mankind.
      Truth: Some Mithraic scholars have tried to depict Mithras and the bull he had slain as one and the same, construing the story to represent that Mithras gave his own life. However, the narrative in no way suggests this. At best, Mithras could be considered heroic for his victory over the bull, though more likely is the modern interpretation that the bull slaying story corresponded to astrological themes. However, this has no comparison to the Christian claim that Jesus died as atonement for the sins of mankind.

      Claim 7 Mithras was buried in a tomb, and after three days, He rose again.
      Truth: In Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian writes, “if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan), sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crow.” This is the only reference from which some Mithraic scholars claim a correlation between Mithraic and Christian traditions. Unfortunately, having been written after the New Testament, there is no evidence that what it describes predates Christianity. Nor is there really any compelling aspect to Tertullian’s description that would indicate that these practices were authentic to Mithraism or even appropriately compared to Christian tradition.

      Claim 8 Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
      Truth: There is no evidence for this saying being attributed to Mithras. Scholars have, however, found this saying attributed to Zarathustra, though in a medieval docu ment (remember that Zarathustra, the founding prophet of Zoroastrianism, is thought to have lived some time around 2000 B.C.). Though followers of Mithras were known to have fellowship meals, at which was eaten bread, water, wine and meat, such circ umstances were common to meals shared by many people in many different contexts.

      Claim 9: Mithras celebrated a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper”
      Truth: Followers of Mithras did NOT celebrate a Eucharist, but they did celebrate a fellowship meal regularly, just as did many other groups in the Roman world.

      Claim 10: Mithras was called “the Good Shepherd”, and was identified with both the Lamb and the Lion
      Truth: There is NO evidence that Mithras was ever called “the Good Shepherd” or identified with a lamb, but Since Mithras was a sun-god, there was an as sociation with Leo (the House of the Sun in Babylonian astrology), so one might say that he was as sociated with a Lion. But once again, all of this evidence is actually POST New Testament, and cannot therefore be borrowed by Christianity.

      The Reasoning Behind the Mithras Mythology: If God was to be as sociated in our minds with a symbol from animal life, we would expect him to have a strong representation, such as a lion.

      Claim 11: Mithras was considered to be the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
      Truth: Based on the researched and known historic record of the Mithraic tradition, none of these terms has ever been applied to Mithras deity with the exception of “mediator”. But this term is very different from the way that it is used in the Christian tradition. Mithras is not the mediator between God and man but the mediator between the good and evil Gods of Zoroaster.

      The Reasoning Behind the Mithras Mythology: If there is a God, we would expect him to provide us with some way to know him, perhaps in the form of a mediator.

      Claim 12: Mithras celebrated Sunday as His sacred day (also known as the “Lord’s Day,”)
      Truth: This tradition of celebrating Sunday is only true of Mithras followers in Rome and it is a tradition that dates to POST Christian times. Once again, it is more likely to have been borrowed from Christianity than the other way around.

      The Reasoning Behind the Mithras Mythology: Any true worship of God should and would involve a desire on the part of the believer to honor this God regularly

      Conclusions
      It should be emphasized that none of the alleged similarities between Mithras and Jesus can be shown to apply to the Persian Mithra, but only to the Roman Mithraic tradition, which did not really flourish until after the time of the New Testament.
      That said, the alleged connections are quite dubious, as explained above. In fact, no archeological evidence for this tradition can be argued to exist from any earlier than A.D. 90. This seems to suggest that the re-emergence of Mithras in the Roman context preserved the name of the Persian deity, yet adopted a new set of traditions more closely linked to the many mystery religions of the time. In any case, the overall Mithraic tradition should actually be thought of as two distinct movements, having little to do with one another beyond having a god of the same name.
      From this quick examination of the Mithras tradition, we can see that he is formed from the rock of a mountain. His birthday celebration was later adopted at the winter solstice, just as the Roman Catholics did for the birth of Christ. Mithras was not a teacher like Jesus. He did not have twelve disciples like Jesus. He may have offered his followers immortality, as this was common for deity mythologies of all kinds. He was believed to have performed miracles, like other deities. He did not sacrifice himself for the world as did Jesus. There is no evidence that Mithras ever died, was ever buried or ever resurrected. In a similar way, there is no evidence that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd” or a ssociated with the lamb. He was loosely a ssociated to the lion in that he was a sun-god as sociated to Leo. Mithras has never been called the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” the “Logos,” “Redeemer,” “Savior” nor “Messiah.” He was called a “mediator” but in a very different way than Jesus. Followers of Mithras did celebrate on Sunday in the years FOLLOWING the Christian celebration of the “Lord’s Day”, and while Mithras followers did fellowship together, they did not celebrate a Eucharist of any kind. So in hindsight, how similar is Mithras to Jesus after all?

      Sources
      The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries
      (Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World)
      by David Ulansey (Oxford University Press, 1989)
      Mithras, the Secret God
      by M. J. Vermaseren (Barnes and Noble Publishers, 1963)
      Mithraic Studies
      (Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies – 2 Volumes)
      edited by John R Hinnells (Manchester University Press, 1975)

      March 1, 2013 at 12:03 pm |
    • Jesus

      Trying to refute the barrage of misinformation coming from Chad is an exercise in futility. By the time you’ve gotten through it all, it’s time to start all over again. His latest copy and paste from http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-jesus-simply-a-retelling-of-the-mithras-mythology/ is more of the same apologist BS!

      March 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Really?

      The faithful referred to Mithras as "the Light of the World"; symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a holy trinity.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • JustForFun

      Life events shared by Jesus and another god-man:
      There are numerous god-men in the ancient Mediterranean area and Middle East. There are many stories that appear both in Jesus' biography and in the legends of another god-man:
      – Mother's pregnancy: It was a common belief among early Christians that Mary was pregnant for only seven months. This legend is preserved in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Although this gospel was widely used by early Christians, it was never accepted into the official canon. Semele, mother of Dionysus, was also believed to have had a 7 month pregnancy.
      – Virgin birth: Author William Harwood has written that Jesus' "equation in Greek eyes with the resurrected savior-god Dionysos led an interpolator to insert a virgin-birth myth into the gospel now known as Matthew." 1
      – Birth Witnesses:
      – The gospel of Matthew records that Jesus was visited by an unknown number of wise men, called Magi.
      – Authors Freke & Gandy identify them as followers of the god man Mithras from Persia. 4
      – Most other sources believe that they were Zoroastrian priests from Persia who were experts in astrology. There is a Zoroastrian belief "that a son of Zoroaster will be born many years after his death by a virgin...This son will apparantly [sic] raise the dead and crush the forces of evil. Later Christians got rather excited about this apparant [sic] pagan prophecy of the coming of the Messiah..." 2
      – The gospel of Luke records that Jesus was visited by three shepherds. Mithra the god man from Persia was also visited shortly after birth by three shepherds.
      – The magi brought gold, frankincense and myrrh. A Pagan belief from the 6th century BCE states that these are the precise materials to use when worshiping God.
      – Healing: Jesus is recorded throughout the gospels as healing the sick and restoring the dead to life. So was Asclepius, a Greek god man. Pagans and early Christians debated who was the more effective healer.
      – Ministry: Jesus appeared as a wandering holy man who is later transfigured in the presence of some of his disciples. Dionysus was portrayed in the same manner in Euripides' play The Bacchae, written in 410 BCE.
      – Miracles:
      – Both Jesus and Empedocles were recorded as teaching spiritual truths, curing illness, foretelling the future, controlling the wind and rain, and raising people from the dead.
      – Both Mithra and Jesus performed many healings of the sick and mentally ill; both raised the dead. 3
      – Mark, chapter 5 describes Jesus driving demons from a man into a herd of about 2,000 pigs who rushed over a cliff and drowned. In Eleusis, about 2,000 initiates would bathe in the sea. Each had a young pig to which the believers' sins would be transferred. The pigs were then chased over a chasm and killed.
      – Fishing: John 21:11 records that Jesus performed a miracle which enabled Simon Peter to catch exactly 153 fish. The Pagan Pythagoras considered 153 a sacred number. The ratio of 153 to 265 was referred to by the Pagan Archimedes as "the measure of the fish." That ratio is used to generate a fish-like shape using two circles. The sign of the fish was used by the early Christians as their main symbol.
      – Arrest:
      – Both Dionysus and Jesus celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples before his death.
      – Dionysus is described in Euripides' play The Bacchae as bringing a new religion to the people, being plotted against by the leaders, being arrested and appearing before the political ruler. Dionysus said to his captors "You know not what you are doing..," almost replicating Jesus' words at the cross. He was unjustly accused and executed. All of these themes are seen in the Gospels.
      – Crucifixion & resurrection:
      – Jesus' body was wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh and aloe. Osiris was also said to have been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh.
      Again, the god men myths had been circulating well before Jesus birth. The Christians would have copied earlier Pagan material, not vice-versa.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Chad

      Putting to death the Dionysus/Osiris comparison with Jesus
      Historians do their best to understand Osiris from archeological digs, existing temples and wall carvings in Egypt. According to the myth, Osiris was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. His sister- wife (Isis) collected the pieces of her dismembered husband, revived him, and later conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Let’s take a look at the claims we have already described and separate truth from fiction, and then try to understand the underlying hope of the people who invented the god called Osiris:

      Claim: Osiris was called “Lord of Lords”, “King of Kings”, “God of Gods”, “Resurrection and the Life”, “Good Shepherd”, “Eternity and Everlastingness”, and the god who “made men and women to be “born again”
      Truth: These names for Jesus were NOT used by Osiris, who was called, “Lord of All”, the “Good Being”, “Lord of the Underworld”, “Lord (King) of Eternity”, “Ruler of the Dead”, “Lord of the West”, “Great One”, “He who takes seat,” “the Begetter”, “the Ram”, “Great Word”, “Chief of the Spirits”, “Ruler of Everlastingness”, “Living God,” “God above the gods.” These rather general names were not uncommon for many other deities as well.

      The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: If there is a God, we would expect Him to be powerful and possess a t itle that reflects that power.

      Claim: Osiris’ birth was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, and Osiris had a star in the east (Sirius) that signified his birth
      Truth: It IS true that some scholars connect Osiris with Orion, but they don’t stretch the imagination to call the three stars of the belt “wise men”, and there is no mention of an eastern star in the Osiris mythology.

      The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: It is reasonable to as sume that if there is a God, his emergence into the natural world would be in some way spectacular and supernatural

      Claim: Osiris had a Eucharist ceremony of sorts, in which his flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat
      Truth: There is no evidence for this in the research of the scholars

      Claim: Osiris taught much of the same material as Jesus; many teachings are identically the same, word for word
      Truth: There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, and the ‘wisdom’ of Osiris is still available for review.

      The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: If there is a God, we would expect Him to be a source of great wisdom

      Claim: Osiris was killed and later resurrected, providing hope to all that they may do likewise and become eternal
      Truth: Osiris was murdered and his body was then dismembered and scattered. Later, his body pieces were recovered and rejoined, and he was rejuvenated. Osiris then journeyed to the underworld, where he became the lord of the dead. He did NOT resurrect with a glorified body and walk with men on earth, as did Jesus. He was not alive again, as was Jesus, but was instead a “dead” god who never returned among the living

      The Reasoning Behind the Osiris Mythology: If there is a true God, we would expect him to have mastery over death and be able to control the powers of death and life.

      From this quick examination of the Osiris tradition, we can see that he was NOT called by the same names that were used for Jesus, and while he was connected by some to the Orion constellation, there is NO mention of three wise men in the Osiris birth story. In addition, Osiris was NOT celebrated with a Eucharist. He was murdered and reas sembled, but was NOT resurrected to glory and life as was Jesus. So in hindsight, how similar is Mithras to Jesus after all?
      How can anyone simply “say” something is similar to another matter when no similarity exists?

      http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html

      please, oh please someone try the "Horus is Jesus" nonsense! 🙂

      March 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Jesus

      Horus is Jesus

      March 1, 2013 at 2:37 pm |
    • Chad

      thank you!!!

      I particularly like it when people make this claim, because it has been thoroughly investigated and refuted by an atheist 🙂

      Source of info: Les Jenkins, Atheist


      putting to death the nonsense comparison of Horus and Jesus

      Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

      Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a subst itute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

      Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

      As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

      Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

      This is accurate.

      Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.

      I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds. In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave. Mas sey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave.

      Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.

      There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth. To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Ma ssey and Ma ssey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor see (from an atheist) further regarding virgin birth and pronouncement by angels http ://w ww.frontlin e-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor _inscription.htm

      Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

      There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen. The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any docu ment that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus. See the website referenced in Claim #5.

      Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.

      There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.

      Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

      There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Ma ssey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.

      Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.

      Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

      According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

      Ma ssey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Ma ssey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not.

      Claim #10-Both walked on water.

      Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did. Ma ssey does not maintain that Hours did. Ma ssey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus. Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at ni ght. Ma ssey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day.

      As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this.

      Claim #11-Both performed miracles.

      This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

      Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.

      The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any docu ment regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.

      Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

      These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate none of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it. I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.

      Ma ssey does compares a story about the Autumn Equinox related to Osiris, not Horus, as the symbolic crucifixion. There is no indication that Horus is involved in any way. There is no mention by Ma ssey of any Sermon on the Mount. No mention or any actual crucifixion, no two thieves, no burial in a tomb. Mas sey does not maintain that anything of the sort occurred with Horus.

      In short, of the claims outlined in this entry, I find the comparison between Horus and Jesus to consist of the following: they were of royal descent, they allegedly worked miracles and there were murder plots against them.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Terry

      Looney atheist wesbsites prove Mithra is, like Jesus and so on.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • .

      "http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html"

      Poor chad too lazy to do his homework again rushing in to try and show he's smart by copying and pasting from the web. This site is totally bogus. The person who wrote this site is an ex-con running a scam on believers so he can get donations from them.. LMAO!

      March 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm |
    • End Religion

      Jesus ~= Dionysus ~= Osiris ~= Horus ~= Mithras

      March 2, 2013 at 7:14 am |
  4. Topher

    Jesus is ... the bread of life.

    Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. (John 6:35)

    March 1, 2013 at 10:37 am |
    • sam stone

      How can anyone be sure WHAT jesus said, as the bible has been fvcked with more times than a san diego streetwalker when the fleet is in?

      March 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Topher

      Sam

      Where's your evidence of that? Because I've got copies of the Bible within 25 years of the original. And it's the same then as it is now.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:44 am |
    • sam stone

      oooh, copies.

      how convincing

      March 1, 2013 at 10:57 am |
    • science

      Picture of your god from 2013 would be alot better Topher.

      It won't melt the camera !

      Paece

      March 1, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • Topher

      What's wrong with copies? And you still haven't told me why you think the Bible was changed.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • sam stone

      topher: you have made claims for which you say you have evidence, and then back off by saying that perhaps we will find the evidence lacking, but it is still evidence

      copies of hearsay is still hearsay

      March 1, 2013 at 11:01 am |
    • sam stone

      topher: i don't see how it can be translated throughout languages with linguistic differences without the translators doing their own editing (intentionally or unintentionaly)

      March 1, 2013 at 11:05 am |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      " i don't see how it can be translated throughout languages with linguistic differences without the translators doing their own editing (intentionally or unintentionaly)"

      Fair enough. But having a spelling or copy error (which we do have) are not the same as changing the Bible. The fact is, because we have these extremely early copies, we know about the mistakes and what they should say.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:10 am |
    • sam stone

      where's the evidence for all the claims you make, topher?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:12 am |
    • Austin

      Live not on bread alone but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:13 am |
    • Topher

      Do we have the "the Bible has been changed" stuff done?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:16 am |
    • sam stone

      i googled it, topher...some agree with you, some agree with me.

      ow

      March 1, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • sam stone

      i googled it, topher...some agree with you, some agree with me.

      now, about the "evidence" for your claims......

      March 1, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • JMEF

      Topher
      Can you guess why that the faith has had to have a branch called christian apologetics since Paul got the scam up and running? I will tell you. Once people started questioning the stories, ie. that does not make sense; they had to go into turtle mode to come up with a barely plausible rsponse. The more science and knowledge mankind developed the more the apologists had to make up more BS to cover the bible nonsense, just what you are doing now.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:18 am |
    • sam stone

      Another set of problems that has not been addressed in a consistent way
      derives from the fact that many of the individual books of the New Testament
      putatively belong to the first century c.e. but in fact represent
      early collections from the early second century. 2 Corin thians is almost
      6 EDITING THE BIBLE
      universally regarded as a letter collection; 1 Corinthians and Philippians
      may be collections, and in any event, the earliest Pauline canon (P46) has
      already associated Hebrews, a non-Pauline writing, with ten Pauline letters
      (excluding the Pastoral Epistles). This raises the question, what text is
      actually being edited and presented in a critical edition of the New Testament:
      the putative first-century letter of Paul or a second-century compilation?
      Is the text of Mark that is edited in a Bible a putative text circa 70 c.e.
      or a mid-second century archetype that accounts for all later manuscripts?
      In other books of the New Testament there are a large number of recognized
      interpolations and modifications—the longer ending of Mark,
      the Johannine “comma” (1 John 5:7–8), the Johannine story of the woman
      caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11), and possibly Luke 22:43–44—interpolations
      that might represent the state of the New Testament text in the
      mid- to late second century. Should these be included or excluded? How
      early can we imagine the idea of a collection of Christian Scriptures being
      formulated, how was such a collection imagined, and what belonged to it?
      David Trobisch argues that the New Testament is the product of a careful
      and deliberate editorial process and was complete as early as the middle of
      the second century c.e.
      6. Con

      March 1, 2013 at 11:21 am |
    • Topher

      sam stone

      "i googled it, topher...some agree with you, some agree with me. "

      Of course some make those claims because they want to tear down God and His word. But the evidence doesn't bear that out.

      "now, about the "evidence" for your claims......"

      Which claim?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • M

      "Because I've got copies of the Bible within 25 years of the original. And it's the same then as it is now."

      That's hilarious. You have a copy from ... well, which version of the Bible? And within 25 years of the original? You're sitting on one of the rarest finds ever.

      Of course, you realize that even the modern day Protestant Bible came into existence in 1611, right? Many centuries after Jesus' life?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • sam stone

      "Of course some make those claims because they want to tear down God and His word. But the evidence doesn't bear that out"

      Ah, "the evidence" again

      "which claims"

      okay, how about that god exists and that the bible is god's word?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:58 am |
    • sam stone

      (crickets chirping)

      (spoken softly)..."here we have the spotted topher, loud and boisterous at times, but when confronted, runs and hides. seen often on his knees"

      March 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Rollo Tomasi

      It's worse when he and Chad do offer "evidence," which is always a severely tortured misunderstanding of science mixed with massive unsupported speculation, and of course just plain lies like "the historicity of the empty tomb."

      March 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • sam stone

      yeah, it would be sad if it weren't so comical

      March 1, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
    • sam stone

      JMEF: Technology will be the downfall of the babble and the christian apologetics like Topher and Chad. Good riddance

      March 1, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      "The premise directly leads to the conclusion, and it is most definitely a controversial point not conceded by the other side."

      Again, I'm skipping that second part because 1) you are making assumptions about who the "other side" is and 2) I don't agree to that definition of "begging the question.

      With regard to "The premise directly leads to the conclusion":

      1) This is not remotely the same thing as "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."

      2) The argument you listed was:
      (P) There is no evidence of God
      .....
      (C) One cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      By "directly leads to" are you calling this a tautology? One has to do with the existence of evidence and the other has to do with being justified in holding a belief – these are not the same things. Some would, for example, argue that you are "justified" in believing something if it brings happiness to society.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:39 pm |
    • Saraswati

      Above comment reposted under NA_20130301 thread.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:41 pm |
    • sam stone

      Rollo: I think Topher confuses belief with evidence

      March 1, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      Nope. I didn't run away. I just had to go get my taxes done. Are you still here?

      March 1, 2013 at 1:58 pm |
    • sam stone

      yes,but i am headed off to the gym. if you have evidence for the existence of a god, much less than the god of the bible, present it. i will look at it when i get back

      March 1, 2013 at 2:44 pm |
    • Topher

      Sam

      Tell you what. I have a bunch of family coming over soon. Let's just agree to meet up and talk about it on Monday. But only if you are really interested. If you are just looking to bash it, let's not. It'll save us both the aggravation.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:48 pm |
    • sam stone

      if you come with reason, i will not bash it. if you come with more of the "it's true because i believe it's true", i will bash it. have a great weekend"

      March 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm |
    • Topher

      I have never used "because I believe it" as evidence. Have a good weekend, dude. God bless.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • sam stone

      not a direct quote, despite the quotation marks

      March 1, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
  5. Jesus is____

    The Alpha and the Omega.

    March 1, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • sam stone

      A guy who was mytholigized after he made trouble for the relgious establishment and got whacked by the romans

      March 1, 2013 at 10:38 am |
    • Eric G

      I thought he was a Capricorn?

      March 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm |
  6. Jesus is_____

    Emmanuel!
    God revealing himself to Man 🙂

    March 1, 2013 at 10:14 am |
    • clarity

      Well – it depends on who the person's mother's name and father's name really. For instance it could be something like:
      Jesus Emmanuel Cuevas Ramos.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:19 am |
    • clarity

      which is quite different from Jesus Cuevas Emmanuel Ramos or Jesus Ramos Cuevas Emmanuel.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Clarity needs some real clarity

      Read the root post in context of this article.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • The Devil

      Sounds like Chad

      March 1, 2013 at 10:24 am |
    • clarity

      and any one of them would be god of his hood based on a lot of factors – # of enemies, # of guns,.. how good a shot he is, you know

      March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • Guest

      Who is chad?

      March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • Guest 2

      Guest-Probably Ida's descendant 😉

      March 1, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • clarity

      clarity is quite well aware of Chad's "context". It's better so put it into a more realistic reasonable "perspective" so to speak; lol.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • The devil

      Read this thread he thinks he is god maybe

      March 1, 2013 at 10:28 am |
    • Robert Brown

      God with us

      March 1, 2013 at 11:25 am |
    • Science

      Robert

      Nice try

      Paece

      March 2, 2013 at 8:52 am |
  7. Karen

    That pastor has a really oddly shaped head.

    March 1, 2013 at 10:07 am |
    • Ned

      It's from putting too many dicks in his mouth!

      March 1, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • == o ==

      The haircut reveals a childhood of Irritable Bowl-cut Syndrome.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • .

      His haircuts align with the Beeb's, too. Scary.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:21 am |
  8. NA_20130301

    The circular reasoning and veracity of the anti-Jesus comments out there are getting tiring to read. You all think you know the answers to everything yet you know so little. Open your mind and *truly seek* the truth – because in reality, your words speak against The One True Living God.

    Read about people in your own culture that have encountered the One True God.
    – Take a look at books such as "23 minutes in hell by Bill Weise" and "Heaven is for real" to just name 2. There is a lot of evidence out there for those that are open to the real truth.

    Repent and turn to Him while there is still time.

    March 1, 2013 at 9:18 am |
    • midwest rail

      I'm not sure you know the meaning of either circular reasoning OR veracity.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:28 am |
    • NA_20130301

      midwest rail: are you not [falsely] convinced that what you are saying is true ? and yes, you would not be able to see your own circular reasoning if you yourself are convinced of it.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:32 am |
    • midwest rail

      Nonsense. But you already knew that.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:33 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "because in reality, your words speak against The One True Living God."

      NA,

      And since it is "reality" you can demonstrat this "reality" right?

      (hint: Citing the empty claims of others is not demonstration)

      March 1, 2013 at 9:43 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      And why don't you read about people from other cultures who have encountered THEIR True Gods.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • NA_20130301

      Blessed: Would you ask Marlene the same thing (below) ? What about the Mayo Clinic staff that were interviewed ?

      Woman Healed of Cerebral Palsy Through Vision – CBN.com
      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhRobcU7RqE&w=640&h=360]

      March 1, 2013 at 9:50 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Don't forget about Pope John Paul's miraculous cure of Sister Marie Simon-Pierre's Parkinson's disease.
      Oh wait – she relapsed.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • midwest rail

      Your video is merely a non-answer, a deflection to avoid the question.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:57 am |
    • Austin

      I need Gods help and forgiveness. This is a rough world. My flesh disagrees with my brain. I complain, when I should strengthen myself in his resurrection power. I need his strength and faithfulness.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • Bob

      No, Austin, you are a pathetic wimp who can't take responsibility for your own life and actions. Get a backbone.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:05 am |
    • NA_20130301

      midwest: Would *my* answer matter to you if hers didn't ?

      doc: People cannot heal by their own power or godliness. It is Jesus that heals.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • lunchbreaker

      How is an autobiography about an NDE, which can not be measured and verified, considered evidence?

      March 1, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • midwest rail

      At least your own answer would (hopefully) not be another deflection.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:09 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      Wow NA,

      That is 5 minutes of pure cr@p. The only thing that proved is that you are gullible to the CBN propoganda. Notice they didn't interview a doctor, or any hospital staff. They are making claims but provide nothing to back up their assertions.

      But let me get this streight. Your god healed Marlene but allows tens of thousands of children to suffer and die around the world every day.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:13 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Well, the Nun in question prayed to Jesus through the spirit of the recently departed Pope.
      And what do you mean only Jesus heals?
      The Latter Day Saints have loads of eye witness testimony to Joseph Smith's laying of hands and direct healing of people. For example:
      "Ezra Booth, of Mantua, a Methodist preacher of much more than ordinary culture, and with strong natural abilities, in company with his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, and some other citizens of this place, visited Smith at his house in Kirtland, in 1831. Mrs. Johnson had been afflicted for some time with a lame arm, and was not at the time of the visit able to lift her hand to her head. The party visited Smith, partly out of curiosity, and partly to see for themselves what there might be in the new doctrine. During the interview the conversation turned upon the subject of supernatural gifts; such as were conferred in the days of the apostles. Some one said: 'Here is Mrs. Johnson with a lame arm; has God given any power to men on the earth to cure her?' A few moments later, when the conversation had turned in another direction, Smith rose, and walking across the room, taking Mrs. Johnson by the hand, said in the most solemn and impressive manner: "Woman, in the name of Jesus Christ, I command thee to be whole; and immediately left the room. The company were awestricken at the infinite presumption of the man, and the calm assurance with which he spoke. The sudden mental and moral shock—I know not how better to explain the well attested fact—electrified the rheumatic arm—Mrs. Johnson at once lifted it with ease, and on her return home the next day she was able to do her washing without difficulty or pain."

      Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, also has volumes of testimony about her healing via channeling the power of Christ. Her flock believes that anyone with the inclination can learn do it.
      You should read her book!
      "By thousands of well-authenticated cases of healing, she and her students have proved the worth of her teachings. These cases for the most part have been abandoned as hopeless by regular medical attendants. Few invalids will turn to God till all physical supports have failed, because there is so little faith in His disposition and power to heal disease.
      The divine Principle of healing is proved in the personal experience of any sincere seeker of Truth. Its purpose is good, and its practice is safer and more potent than that of any other sanitary method."
      – "Science and Health: Preface" (Mary Baker Eddy)

      March 1, 2013 at 10:15 am |
    • Saraswati

      NA_20130301,

      If you really see circular reasoning here you should be able to spell it out in a couple of lines. If you can't do that it is fair to assume you don't know what you're talking about.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Austin

      Why do we debate proof when knowledge is not salvation. It is faith, dependence on what God provides , forgiveness. Can you measure your soul in a lab?

      Jehovah Jireh. The Lord provides. Jehovah Shammah. The Lord is there!

      March 1, 2013 at 10:27 am |
    • NA_20130301

      Blessed: There are many many – many examples out there – are they all propaganda because they don't align with *your* reasoning ? They did interview staff and showed hospital records.

      Saraswati: See above for your answer. People are ignoring reality in favor of their own ideas.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:30 am |
    • NA_20130301

      Doc:

      ...
      Act 3:12 Peter saw his opportunity and addressed the crowd. "People of Israel," he said, "what is so surprising about this? And why stare at us as though we had made this man walk by our own power or godliness?
      Act 3:13 For it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God of all our ancestors—who has brought glory to His servant Jesus by doing this.
      ...

      March 1, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • midwest rail

      Translation of NA's latest deflection – " I have no idea what circular reasoning actually is, but it's too late to retreat now".

      March 1, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Saraswati

      @midwest, Yep, the first theory was correct: he or she doesn't know what either circular reasoning or veracity mean. I think NA looked up veracity and is probably now reading up on what circular reasoning is. Scary stuff.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • NA_20130301

      midwest: Do you really think that insulting someone that you don't know is going to further your cause?

      Let me spell it out: here's one example of a faulty circular thought process that appears common:
      1. There is no god because there is no evidence of god.
      2. There cannot be any evidence of god because there is no god.

      Resulting faulty conclusion:
      3. Therefore any evidence that is presented *must* be propaganda "since > go back to step 1"

      March 1, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @NA
      You seem to be implying that the mirales of Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy are legitimate.
      If that's the case, why haven't you become a Mormon and/or a Christian Scientist?

      March 1, 2013 at 10:43 am |
    • The Devil

      Chad Logic !!!!

      March 1, 2013 at 10:47 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      "they all propaganda because they don't align with *your* reasoning"

      NA,

      It is all propoganda because they are baseless claims. Even if you can prove that the people were healed you have done nothing to show that prayer or your god was the cause of the healing. People that are suffering and dying pray to your god for help every day and get no response, yet you cling to the few unsubstatiated claims that your god did answer. Look up "confirmation bias".

      March 1, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • sam stone

      NA: Your empty proxy warnings are nonense. You can claim that the god of the bible is the "one, true living god", but until you provide some verifilable evidence (not anyone's personal testimony), all you are doing is more blah, blah, blah

      March 1, 2013 at 10:48 am |
    • NA_20130301

      Doc: I follow Jesus.

      Blessed:
      Here's one example of another faulty thought process that appears common:
      1. All evidence that does not match criteria A is not 'real' evidence.

      Resulting faulty conclusion:
      2. Therefore any evidence that is presented that does not match criteria A *must* be baseless propaganda

      What makes you think that our society's format for 'evidence' is the highest form of 'evidence' ? Could that be a prideful assumption ?

      March 1, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Austin

      I hope that if anyone really wants to know, they will ask sincerely the one who administers genuine faith. If your child asks for soup will you feed him a scorpion? Then if you need faith, ask God.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:55 am |
    • Actually

      " If your child asks for soup will you feed him a scorpion? "

      Actually, that should be – If your child asks for soup your god will feed the to hell.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      NA,

      People make claims every day about being abducted by aliens or seeing Bigfoot, ect. ect. Do you automatically accept what they are saying as "true" because they believe it? Of course not. You require evidence to verify what they are saying. People making claims is not evidence and if you are going to claim that there is a higher form of "evidence" available, you need to define "evidence" and then DEMONSTRAT that it is in fact evidence.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • LinCA

      @NA_20130301

      You said, "Let me spell it out: here's one example of a faulty circular thought process that appears common:
      1. There is no god because there is no evidence of god.
      2. There cannot be any evidence of god because there is no god.
      "

      The argument actually is:
      1) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) There is no reason to believe there are any.

      The propaganda that is provided to support the existence of gods simply doesn't constitute evidence. The most common forms of "evidence" proposed by believers are nothing more than circular reasoning (the bible is the word of my god and the it says that my god is real, therefor it must be real), hearsay (i.e. biblical refernces), agruments ad populum (billions believe it, so it must be true) or arguments from ignorance (no other theory proves it, so mine must be correct).

      March 1, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • midwest rail

      NA – the only reason this appears to you to be circular reasoning is because you have changed the definition of "evidence". Nice try, though.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:17 am |
    • NA_20130301

      LinCA and Blessed:

      Actually it's more like this:
      – These events happened in the Bible ~2000 years ago. Look there are examples that can be seen today (see Marlene's story above) that corroborate the biblical events

      I would say that the 'evidence' based on our societal standards is pretty strong for this miracle:
      – medical records from the Mayo Clinic
      – testimony of people involved

      Like I was saying before – there are *many* other strong evidence examples *if* one's mind is open to seeing them for what they are.

      midwest:
      I am not changing anything evidence has always been evidence – even before it was 'defined' by our culture.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:22 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @NA
      You follow Christ?
      So did Joseph Smith and Mary Baker Eddy.
      Do you believe they had the power to perform miraculous healings by channeling the Power of Christ?

      March 1, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Saraswati

      “Resulting faulty conclusion:
      3. Therefore any evidence that is presented *must* be propaganda ‘since > go back to step 1’”

      That’s actually not an example of circular reasoning. Circular reasoning ends up with a conclusion that is equal to one of its premises, which you have not provided. In fact your #3 isn’t even a conclusion that follows from #2.

      You might make a better argument just sticking to 1 and 2 and drawing them out:

      1. (P) Nothing exists unless there is evidence for it (no same person says this btw, but I am assuming you erroneously think that’s what atheists believe)
      2. (P) There is no evidence of god
      3. (C, P) Therefore, god does not exist
      4. (P) There can be no evidence for something that does not exist (also an odd thing to say, but I assume that you think this is a premise)
      5. (C) There can be no evidence of god (per 3 and 4) – same as 2

      March 1, 2013 at 11:23 am |
    • Saraswati

      @NA_20130301 (cont.)

      You were, I suspect, trying to get at the issue here of 5 being a conclusion which is the same as 2?

      There are two problems, however with this whole scenario:

      1. Virtually no one has ever said #1. If you want to concentrate on the few crackpots who have, feel free, but atheists are then free to address only crackpot Christians.
      2. Atheists do not, as you assume, require 3 and 4 to conclude 5. If that were the case we would never have anyone converting from theism to atheism, so there is some other measure of what “counts as evidence” going on that allows someone who believes in god to weigh the evidence and decide that they do not believe. And yes, that goes both ways, allowing people to make the opposite decision and convert from atheism to theism. What counts as evidence is just as subjective an issue for theists as non-theists, but does not require a pre-existing belief in the conclusion, although after the fact that certainly will influence the way in which evidence is evaluated and collected. Without the belief in god, which can be put aside by a truly open minded theist, the things a theist counts as evidence simply don’t look like evidence anymore.

      Just as a side note, a lot of people on both sides do seem to erroneously believe #4 which muddies the waters.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:27 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      I would say that the 'evidence' based on our societal standards is pretty strong for this miracle:
      – medical records from the Mayo Clinic
      – testimony of people involved

      NA,

      I saw no medical records claiming a miracle, I didn't even see medical records at all. I saw writing on a piece of paper. The testimony proved nothing. Testimony without evidence to show causation is just a claim. Let me add up the testimony of the medical staff ......0+0=0

      March 1, 2013 at 11:33 am |
    • NA_20130301

      Saraswati: thanks for the analysis 🙂 #3 was technically a secondary conclusion based on the initial circular reasoning construct. But isn't that how our current society's scientific thinking builds on itsself ?

      Doc: I 'believe' what I know to be true. After that, I have opinions that are based on that truth.

      Based on what I've read about Joseph Smith, no I do not buy into his teachings since they at least in part contradict what is actually true.

      One other interesting thing to note- not everything supernatural is of God. I say that knowing that some of the folks here are going to take it and try and twist it – but it's true.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Saraswati

      @LinCA,

      "The argument actually is:
      1) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) There is no reason to believe there are any."

      That is a much better representation of what atheists argue than NA's (note I was spelling out his argument, not the atheists in my rewrite). I would draw yours out a bit to:

      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence (reasons) – noting that a lack of belief is not the same as disbelief.
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any.

      Or

      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To be described as “having reason” to believe, one should have evidence – noting that a lack of belief is not the same as disbelief.
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any.

      These are different and I think the first is more meaningful, though it recommends behaviors which may make some uncomfortable. However, this really is what one is doing in these cases. We are stating what humans “should” do with regard to a belief position.

      Some might be making the case that

      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) The absolute truth is best acquired when one holds the fewest unjustified beliefs
      3) (P) To be justified in believing in something one should have evidence (reasons) – noting that a lack of belief is not the same as disbelief.
      4) (C) One cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      Or alternately something like

      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) Greatest welfare for humans is achieved when one holds the fewest unjustified beliefs.
      3) (P) To be justified in believing in something one should have evidence (reasons) – noting that a lack of belief is not the same as disbelief.
      4) (C) One cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:53 am |
    • Chad

      Any argument that starts off with
      (P) There is no evidence of any gods.

      is utterly and completely fallacious. That is simply a perfect example of begging the question.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Chad
      "Feelings" are not evidence.
      The reason religion is predicated on faith is precisely because there is no evidence of the supernatural.
      Faith is the willing suspension of ciritcal though in order to accept supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      The claim that there is no evidence does not logically for god does not require that there is no god any more than the lack of evidence for aliens requires there are no aliens: we have none, but they may exist. Perhaps you are being specific about your definitions of "God" or the phrasing of the evidence statement. If you prefer it could be worded "No evidence of god has been discovered."

      March 1, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @Doc Vestibule ""Feelings" are not evidence. The reason religion is predicated on faith is precisely because there is no evidence of the supernatural."

      Faith:
      A. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
      B. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

      ==============
      Faith has essentially two accepted usages in the English language; atheists attempt to discard ‘A’ over ‘B’, then attack Christians in that context only, making a further critical and purposeful redefinition of the word “faith”, claiming that proof obviates it.

      Atheists claim that faith and knowledge of, or evidence of the existence of that which faith is being placed, are incompatible. This is patently nonsense in both current secular usage and biblical context.

      Secular usage: “faith” is an accepted concept in modern law. “Good faith”, fiduciary duty is ingrained in contract law, and nowhere does it require a lack of knowledge about the object in which faith is being expressed. “I have faith in John, he will do what he says”, it does not require that one has no knowledge of the true existence of John. Indeed it is nonsensical to have a faith in something you don’t know exists.

      Biblical context: “ And without faith it is impossible to please God Hebrews 11
      Which faith is being discussed? A faith for which there is no proof? Does proof obviate faith?
      Throughout the bible it is crystal clear that people, whom are commended for their faith, had ample proof of the existence of God PRIOR to their faith being commended.

      Abraham commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (God speaking to him).
      Moses commended for his faith (Hebrews 11) had ample proof (multiple miracles in Egypt, God speaking directly to him, etc, etc).

      In fact, NO WHERE in the bible is definitive proof of the existence of God EVER shown to obviate a person’s faith. Quite the contrary in fact, God promises to reveal Himself, and make Himself known to you if you search after Him.

      The biblical pattern is ALWAYS the same, God reveals Himself, then asks for a person’s trust in Him. That is biblical faith.

      Now, you can claim the bible isnt correct, but you can not claim that the bible declares that Christian faith is defined as believing in something for which there is no proof.

      There is simply no biblical support for proof obviating faith, or the faith that God desires requires a lack of proof as to His reality.
      None..

      That atheists attempt to make this case is clear evidence of their utter lack of familiarity with the bible, and their complete willingness to suspend objective critical thought when it comes to criticizing Christians.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "The claim that there is no evidence does not logically for god does not require that there is no god any more than the lack of evidence for aliens requires there are no aliens: we have none, but they may exist. Perhaps you are being specific about your definitions of "God" or the phrasing of the evidence statement. If you prefer it could be worded "No evidence of god has been discovered."

      =>perfect example of begging the question
      Evidence of the God of Israel DOES EXIST, you have rejected it as insufficient, but it does exist, that simply can not be argued.

      You simply can not argue the fact that any logic that begins with "No evidence of god has been discovered." is pure begging the question.

      The best you can say is "I feel that insufficient evidence of The God of Israel has been discovered"

      March 1, 2013 at 12:19 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      "Quite the contrary in fact, God promises to reveal Himself, and make Himself known to you if you search after Him."

      It is those revelations that people who disagree with you place into two categories:

      1. Subjective "Feelings" or internal, non-verifiable experiences that people have of the existence of god.
      2. Writings and events interpreted asreliable "evidence" only because one has "feelings".

      Without the first there is no second.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –

      "...it is crystal clear that people, whom are commended for their faith..."

      Still haven't figured out the "who/whom" thing, I see. Care to explain how you completed "several master's degrees" without a command of the language? Tragic.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      That's still not an example of begging the question in the classic sense of that term. There is nothing logically wrong with that argument and it is not a fallacy, you just disagree with the premise (an objection which, if you see my comments to NA earlier, I partly agree with).

      I would personally be happy with the premise you list. I'm not sure if everyone would. But again, it's not begging the question.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Chad

      You'll have to explain how the premise
      (P) There is no evidence of God
      .....
      (C) One cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      is not Begging the Question
      Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:33 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      I am perplexed out an atheists discards your "definition A"?

      "A. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
      -Where in that does it discuss having confidence in someone or something based on evidence? The belief I discuss is a christian (or any believers) general complete belief in their religion of choice, regardless of the evidence.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
    • Really-O?

      To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:45 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      1. The evidence you have provided is not evidence but pure speculation, this is different from evidence that atheists choose to reject. The only evidence you have presented is the implication that there might be a creator involved in events that the bible does not directly address, so the most you could get away with is saying that there is evidence that a creator might be there.

      2. Saraswati is right about what you keep saying is "begging the question" is not one at all. You insist that the premise on which someone makes a statement "There is no evidence of a god" is faulty, but that's subjective and not an objective fact. If we use your personal example, then you are also begging the question assuming the premise that god does exist, so who's premise is right?

      An example of begging the question would be, "does your mom know you're a musim?" This is based on the premise that regardless how you answer the question, it assumes you are muslim. The question "is there evidence for god?" does not rest on the premise that god exists or not and thus is not begging the question, nor is saying, "there is no evidence that god exists" . In this instance, you are mixing up fallacys. You think that atheists are guilty of using the confirmation bias fallacy, saying "There is no god, thus any evidence presented only confirms what I already know", the same can be said for you only remove and replace "no" with "a". The only true way to approach the issue without committing fallacy is to approach the question "is there a god" without preconcieved notions. So, you must toos out all opinions and look at the facts, at the evidence, and decide for yourself what const.itues as legit evidence to answer such a question. Personally, an ancient anthology is not good enough to answer that question, and the other pieces of "evidence" you have presented are steeped in assumption and implication. The most I can glean from the information you've provided is that, philisophically speaking, there might be an external being out there who we have named god.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles & @Saraswati –

      Before you engage Chad in a discussion on logical argument, please be aware that this is the very same Chad who posted the following on this blog –

      "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."

      Enough said.

      March 1, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Really-O?

      Touche, I was more engaging Chad in the fact that he using the begging the question fallacy wrong, hopefully he can at least get into the ball park by accusing atheists of using confirmation bias. At least then he'd be sort of right with some people on this board (even though he also committs the fallacy more egreciously than most)

      March 1, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      1) Reject all gods as not real.

      2) Add back a god, if you must, if you feel there is sufficient evidence that it's real.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:05 pm |
    • Chad

      these two premises are equally fallacious
      (P) There is no evidence of God (God does not exist)
      (P) God exists

      end of story.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      I am referring to the first of the two definitions of “begging the question” that you list. The second is just recent common usage and amounts to “I don’t like your premise”. As such it is entirely dependent on audience and is contextually dependent. If you have an argument how under the first, and classic, definition it begs the question let me know.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      An argument is not fallacious because someone disagrees with a premise.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:17 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      "these two premises are equally fallacious
      (P) There is no evidence of God (God does not exist)
      (P) God exists

      end of story."

      Neither is "fallacious"; they're just premises. I can say "Snuffleupagi exist" and deduce a whole lot of things and it's not fallacious (at least not logically), just wrong. Unless they exist.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      We like for premises to be facts. Perhaps by "fallacious" Chad means they are not facts?

      I'm curious. Is it true that one and only one of these is a fact?

      1) God exists
      2) God does not exist

      March 1, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati,
      I think you are incorrect there,
      Begging the Question
      Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain. More generally, an argument begs the question when it assumes any controversial point not conceded by the other side.

      The premise directly leads to the conclusion, and it is most definitely a controversial point not conceded by the other side.

      It is the structure of your argument, and the relation of the relationship of the premise to the conclusion.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:30 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @TTTOO, It depends on your definition of fact, but under most systems of logic only one can be true. Then again, logic is a formal system and reality is something we hope it applies to.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      "The premise directly leads to the conclusion, and it is most definitely a controversial point not conceded by the other side."

      Again, I'm skipping that second part because 1) you are making assumptions about who the "other side" is and 2) I don't agree to that definition of "begging the question.

      With regard to "The premise directly leads to the conclusion":

      1) This is not remotely the same thing as "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."

      2) The argument you listed was:
      (P) There is no evidence of God
      .....
      (C) One cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      By "directly leads to" are you calling this a tautology? One has to do with the existence of evidence and the other has to do with being justified in holding a belief – these are not the same things. Some would, for example, argue that you are "justified" in believing something if it brings happiness to society.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:40 pm |
    • Mike

      I have experienced spiritual revelation, but it is not proof to you. and it does not fix my sinful nature. This experience does not provide a ticket to heaven. I still have no merit, and I have to seek forgiveness ona daily basis, as my flesh as still warring against truth. It is pitiful.

      Aaron saw the presence of God and abandoned his post and formed a false idol, a golden calf. What does this say about us? God would be wasting His time giving you personal proof. If you do not humbly acknowledge, and seek Him, you reject Him, and you would do the same if you had proof. Sin is insanity! Faith is a gift of grace.

      Ask for faith, beg. He is risen.
      Are you going to tell God that you had proof? Seek God daily, ask for faith daily. We are all inadequate before God, and truly desperate for Grace. Your flesh will always war against the proof you seek. This is a spiritual war, within your soul, you are under attack.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:50 pm |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "you are making assumptions about who the "other side"
      @Chad "well, unless you are restricting that argument with an atheist only audience, it begs the question

      ====
      @Saraswati " I don't agree to that definition of "begging the question.
      @Chad "well not to put to fine a point on it, but tough, that's the definition. You dont get to redefine the fallacy just to avoid its application.

      ====
      @Saraswati " With regard to "The premise directly leads to the conclusion":This is not remotely the same thing as "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
      @Chad "incorrect, explain how these are different, and could not be used interchangably as conclusions.
      – there is no evidence of God
      – one cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.

      "there is no evidence of God" is clearly a conclusion (The end or finish of an event or process. The summing-up of an argument or text.)

      =====
      @saraswati "tautology? One has to do with the existence of evidence and the other has to do with being justified in holding a belief – these are not the same things. Some would, for example, argue that you are "justified" in believing something if it brings happiness to society."
      @Chad "self reinforcing statements, I would say that definately applies to those two.

      If there is no evidence, to believe in God is purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?

      March 1, 2013 at 1:54 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad – "If there is no evidence, to believe in God is purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?"

      By George, I think he's got it! Welcome to the fold, Chad. It took you long enough.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:02 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Perhaps Chad hopes to be justified in Gettier's sense.

      Consider, in parallel, Chad's belief in God and a belief he might have about ducks on a pond:

      -There is no evidence that God exists (no ducks in sight).
      -There is something that Chad takes as evidence that God exists (there are convincing robotic ducks on the pond and Chad sees them).

      Chad's belief that God exists is justified (Chad believes there are ducks on the pond – justified).

      March 1, 2013 at 2:05 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Mike

      Your expereinece is as good as the guy in Saudi Arabia claiming the same thing but with Allah instead of god, this is why your "evidence" isn't good, because it's completely opinion and conjecture and is not backed up with empiracle evidence. The rest of your post was honestly this weird jedi mindmeld (yeah current event!) on the guilt trip thats been slapped on you.

      @Chad

      ""there is no evidence of God" is clearly a conclusion (The end or finish of an event or process. The summing-up of an argument or text.)"
      - You are right that it is a conclusion, however like Sara and I have pointed out, your claim that the premise is faulty on which this conclusion is drawn is only personal subjectivity. You claim that this conclusion is false because the premise "god does not exist" is false which means that the true premise would be "god does exist". Since that is at the heart of the debate and neither atheist, nor christian (nor hindu, muslim, jew, ect....) can know for sure that either statement is a true empiracle fact, you are wrong to claim that anyone is using the begging the question fallacy.

      Like I have pointed out before, when you use the begging the question fallacy, and example would be, "Does your mother know you are a muslim" or put more simply A = B or C. If A is incorrect, then it is a fallacy.

      What we are discussing here "There is no evidence of gods existance" it would like like
      If A then A = B
      conversely you believe:
      If not A then A does not = B.

      The conditional makes A a possible premise but does not imply that A is fact. Because of this, no one is committing the begging the question fallacy, either atheist or christian. That only happenson this forum when a christian asks an atheist . "Why do you hate god?" with the faulty premise that god is not up for debate but what is debated is whether the atheist hates god or not. This however is debating the very nature of A.

      The fallacy that both atheists and christians (especially you) committ is confirmation bias.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:08 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Saraswati "you are making assumptions about who the "other side"
      @Chad "well, unless you are restricting that argument with an atheist only audience, it begs the question
      @Saraswati “No, there would be plenty of agnostics interested in at least discussing such a question with a premise that there is no evidence and many theists who would either be interested in seeing the rest of the argument for its own sake or who differ from you with regard to the role of faith in their belief.
      ====
      @Saraswati " I don't agree to that definition of "begging the question.
      @Chad "well not to put to fine a point on it, but tough, that's the definition. You dont get to redefine the fallacy just to avoid its application.
      @Saraswati “No, it’s not that simple. Language evolves and that is a new addition. It’s an addition that does not add anything to debate that is different from “I don’t like your premise” and was added accidentally by people who didn’t understand the first definition.
      ====
      @Saraswati " With regard to "The premise directly leads to the conclusion":This is not remotely the same thing as "Any form of argument in which the conclusion occurs as one of the premisses, or a chain of arguments in which the final conclusion is a premiss of one of the earlier arguments in the chain."
      @Chad "incorrect, explain how these are different, and could not be used interchangably as conclusions.
      – there is no evidence of God
      – one cannot be justified on believing there are any gods.
      "there is no evidence of God" is clearly a conclusion (The end or finish of an event or process. The summing-up of an argument or text.)
      @Saraswati “The fact that ‘there is no evidence’ of god is a conclusion of one argument does not mean it cannot be a premise in another. If that were the case you couldn’t have any premises at all, as all can be the conclusion of some argument. Those two statements, as I explained previously, have different meanings and so are conclusions to different arguments.
      =====
      @saraswati "tautology? One has to do with the existence of evidence and the other has to do with being justified in holding a belief – these are not the same things. Some would, for example, argue that you are "justified" in believing something if it brings happiness to society."
      @Chad "self reinforcing statements, I would say that definately applies to those two.
      @saraswati “Of course the first reinforces the second: it’s a premise. The second does not reinforce the first; it is a conclusion based on the two premises, as spelled out in the argument itself and my previous comment.

      @Chad “If there is no evidence, to believe in God is purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?”
      Please see my above comment – I’m not going to repeat myself.

      For the record, none of these are my own arguments and I don't even find them very interesting. I was, as originally stated in each case, just expanding other arguments listed by other commenters. My own beliefs about what evidence is and how we determine it make the world a lot more slippery than this whole conversation would allow.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm |
    • Austin

      This is an evil humanity, a dark world. Aaron and John the baptist both choked when it came to faith, and they both saw the glory of God. This is the model for the desperation for Gods intervention as the provider of spiritual life. A believer has proof, after he or she humble acknowledges inadequacy.

      Ask God for faith, not proof. Ask and seek him daily .

      March 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm |
    • Tommy

      If there is no evidence, to believe in God is purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?

      That is what we have been asking you for quite a while now, but you won't answer.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:13 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Am I alone in feeling profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that Saraswati's March 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm post is formatted exactly as are Chad's posts (including the incorrect use of @ and incomplete use of quotation marks)?

      What...is...up...with...that?!

      March 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O, I just use the format of whoever sets it up – doesn't bother me how it's structured.

      Was it you I thought was calling me Chad the other day?

      March 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Saraswati –

      Yes, in a previous post you misconstrued that I was implying you were Chad. Your March 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm post makes me very suspicious.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:29 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O, Since I misunderstood you last time, I don't know if you're joking of not. Anyway, when Chad posts his responses like that I copy them out and post them in a Word docu ment. Then I just add my own comments below each section without altering the format or anything he typed.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:40 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O, And again I take it as a compliment that you might think I could pull that off. I really would sell books if I were that creative. Although given the topics we discuss I'm thinking no one would buy them.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:42 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati
      1. regardless of your views on "language should be defined as it applies to the current conversation", which is nonsense, putting forth an argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses is fallacious. The fact that the premise entails the conclusion makes that arguments structure fallacious.

      end of story

      2. the soundness of an arguments structure doesnt change based on the target audience

      March 1, 2013 at 2:45 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Really-O?

      I'll admit the formatting is a little strange but I can't bring myself to believe there would be a person out there who would write long back and forths between himself arguing ferevently both sides of a debate.

      Although the formatting seems improbable, given enough time anything is possible right 🙂

      March 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      "the soundness of an arguments structure doesnt change based on the target audience"
      -Sure, but the validity does. You might accept that an argument "If A then A = B" is both sound and valid of the entire audience is made up of people that all agree on A. However, on this forum it's A that we're all debating about so though your argument might be sound (If god exists, then god existing means there is evidence for his existence) but it's not valid because the premise (god exists) is what is being debated.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:50 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad:

      1. You are wrong about the relationship between the premise and conclusion which I have already explained.
      2. I never said the soundness of an argument varied depending on audience. I was pointing out that if you used your definition of what "begging the question" meant you would be saying exactly that yourself.

      End of story.

      (I added that stylistic touch for Really-O)

      March 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chuckles –

      I'm still very suspicious...look closely at the formatting of the March 1, 2013 at 2:09 pm post and compare it to Chad's March 1, 2013 at 1:54 pm post. The incorrect use of the @ together with the incorrect and imprecise use of quotation marks (quoting text that is not a quote and using an opening quotation mark, but no closing mark). These are hallmarks of Chad's ignorance. More than a bit curious.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Really-O?

      I see it, but sometimes I have aped the person I'm responding to just because it's easier to follow the thread of conversation. I've also seen Saraswati and Chad post at almost the same time on different forums and no one is that quick. I think they are two separate people, mostly because although Saraswati might have similar formating to Chad, she doesn't have the same syntax or diction that is consistent within her posts AND I still want to believe that when two people are writing really long posts back and forth to one another it's not just one person talking to him/herself, especially on an old thread that no one generally follows at this point except for the people involved.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Perhaps Bayesian analysis of all posts is in order. I would like to see Chad become more Saraswati – like. Tighten up a bit on logic, read.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I will say that if "Chad" is also "Saraswati", the poster is really quite clever – "Chad" possesses the grammar of a eighth-grader and is easily prodded into delivering emotional rants, whereas "Saraswati" seems to be quite measured. Hmm...

      March 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm |
    • Chad

      your argument would not hold up in even an entry level Introduction to Logic course.

      your attempt to bypass that by appealing to situational language definition is nonsense.

      putting forth an argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses is fallacious. The fact that the premise entails the conclusion makes that arguments structure fallacious.

      that's all there is to it, pretty basic stuff.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:00 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O, Can you tell me what lines you're looking at, because now I'm starting to wonder if I have MPD and don't know about it. 🙂

      Yeah, I know Chad uses smilies, too, I've actually noticed that as an actual valid similarity.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Really-O, except I'm kind of embarrassed about that run-on sentence I just typed. Oops. Not that I remember Chad doing that particularly.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Pretty basic stuff."

      Snidely blabbers again.

      Do you have any love for your god, Chard? Does it do anything for you–give you joy, hope, satisfaction, fulfillment?

      It surely never looks that way from your posts.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:04 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      Who are you talking to in that last comment?

      March 1, 2013 at 3:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati

      your argument would not hold up in even an entry level Introduction to Logic course.

      your attempt to bypass that by appealing to situational language definition is nonsense.

      putting forth an argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses is fallacious. The fact that the premise entails the conclusion makes that arguments structure fallacious.

      that's all there is to it, pretty basic stuff.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:06 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad

      Are you just completely ignoring this discussion about us being the same person or do you find it even a little bit amusing?

      I pointed out several times, btw, that conclusion and premise were not the same, so if you're talking to me you are just chosing to ignore what I said. I won't get as nasty as you since I don't really know who you meant or what you were responding to.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • Chad

      " easily prodded into delivering emotional rants"

      =>example please..

      Just kidding 🙂
      I know you dont do "examples"

      March 1, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I just had a mental picture of a Chad doll with Saraswati pulling a little string to get it to speak.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:09 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Dance, monkey, dance.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:10 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad, OK, I see you reposted clarifying that comment was for me so I guess I’m supposed to come through and be as rude as you. Should I point out you have the reading comprehension skills of a 10 year old or that you are massively deluded about your own level of objectivity? OK, that’s all I’ve got…I don’t really feel like being nasty.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati

      1. atheists commonly think that if anyone agrees with anything a Christian says, that person is merely a sock puppet. So, when it appears that you might be going dangerously close to agreeing with me, or at least not vociferously disagreeing, you are treading dangerously close to being a sock puppet of mine.

      it's a curious belief on the part of atheists that there really is only one Christian on the internet, posting under an endless number of pseudonyms.

      2. Sorry, look, it's very simple. Putting forth an argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses is fallacious.
      The fact that the premise entails the conclusion makes that arguments structure fallacious.
      The fact that the premise simply can not be as sumed to be true, makes the arguments structure fallacious.

      A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[1] In other words: a premise is an as sumption that something is true.

      your argument structure is simply fallacious.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Dr Steven Hahaha, PhD

      These poor pseudo intellectual atheists getting their behind whipped!

      March 1, 2013 at 3:15 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If that were the case, HaHa, you wouldn't be commenting on it. Why are you using this moniker instead of your usual "Rachel"?

      March 1, 2013 at 3:17 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "it's a curious belief on the part of atheists that there really is only one Christian on the internet, posting under an endless number of pseudonyms."
      @TTTPS "Why are you using this moniker instead of your usual "Rachel"?"

      QED

      March 1, 2013 at 3:19 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad posting as "Rachel" –

      https://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/06/richard-dawkins-evolution-is-not-a-controversial-issue/comment-page-10/#comments
      Starting: starting ~September 9, 2012 at 7:24 pm
      Busted: September 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm

      March 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm |
    • Saraswati

      [using Chad’s formatting here to breed confusion for my own entertainment]

      @Chad “1. atheists commonly think that if anyone agrees with anything a Christian says, that person is merely a sock puppet. So, when it appears that you might be going dangerously close to agreeing with me, or at least not vociferously disagreeing, you are treading dangerously close to being a sock puppet of mine.”

      @saraswati “We have agreed several times, and while that mistake was made once several months ago I’m not sure this is the case here as our agreements are minor. I should point out that that lack of willingness to agree with the other side is seen by both theists and atheists on this site, probably for a reason similar to what you state combined with a desire to “win”.

      @Chad “it's a curious belief on the part of atheists that there really is only one Christian on the internet, posting under an endless number of pseudonyms.”

      @saraswati “I read this at first as you saying people thought there was only one Christian, meaning one type of Christian. That I think is in some cases true. Not all atheists, but some think that all Christians believe X where there is really more variety. Of course, as we’ve debated before, I think there’s even more variety than you do. With regard to the other reading, that people are posting using multiple names, I don’t think anyone believes it’s a single person and I doubt you do. But I have seen people on both sides argue that the other is just a few people posting here.

      @Chad 2. “Sorry, look, it's very simple. Putting forth an argument where the conclusion occurs as one of the premiseses is fallacious.

      @saraswati “Agreed, as … hmmmm… I’m not an imbecile and have studied logic. You are managing to come off as both a condescending jerk a fool in assuming that I wouldn’t know this given that I have said as much myself.”

      @Chad “The fact that the premise entails the conclusion makes that arguments structure fallacious.”

      @saraswati “Yes, it would be a fallacy, except in that is not the case here as I pointed out and as you continue to ignore. Disagree all you want. I don’t care…as I said, not even my argument.”

      @Chad “The fact that the premise simply can not be as sumed to be true, makes the arguments structure fallacious.”

      @saraswati “It’s not a logical fallacy but may be a rhetorical fallacy depending on where you stand. It’s still logically sound.”

      March 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Thanks for responding, Chard. Whenever one of your insipid cheerleaders shows up, it's pretty clear they're all one person.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:36 pm |
    • Chad

      lol
      like I said, atheists have this utterly irrational belief that there is only one Christian on the internet 🙂

      ===
      @saraswati,
      Would you agree this argument is logically valid? I do not view it as logically valid.
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel

      March 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, I have no doubt there's more than one. But none of the others need Rachel and Doctor HaHa to cheer for them. Your ego is apparently more fragile than most. Surprising, since you have so much faith and love through god.

      Maybe that's the problem. You don't really have any faith.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati " It’s still logically sound.”"

      =>sorry, no. You simply can not dance around and pick which words you want to make use of and which you dont.
      Even if the logical structure WERE valid (which it isnt), that argument STILL isnt sound, as the premises arent true.

      A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

      A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

      According to the definition of a deductive argument (see the Deduction and Induction), the author of a deductive argument always intends that the premises provide the sort of justification for the conclusion whereby if the premises are true, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true as well. Loosely speaking, if the author’s process of reasoning is a good one, if the premises actually do provide this sort of justification for the conclusion, then the argument is valid.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:42 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      I also don’t view your example as valid. You would have to invert premise #2. This is not a parallel argument to the original.

      I’m out of here for the day, btw, so we leave on a note of (at least partial) agreement.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      I, for one, certainly don't assume Chad is the only Christian on the internet. I have interacted with several believers on this very blog and while I did not agree with many of their views, as individuals they were pleasant, cordial, and mature – this alone is enough for any reasonable person to conclude they were not Chad in disguise.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • .

      "=>sorry, no. You simply can not dance around and pick which words you want to make use of and which you dont."

      That's exactly what you do and you are far worse out it. What a hypocrite.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Dr Steven Hahaha, PhD

      There is only one Christian posting on this forum.

      Chad/Live4Him/Topher/Fred/John/Robert Brown are all the same!

      It is true. It is T R U E 😉

      March 1, 2013 at 3:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son –

      What's your view on my "Chad == Saraswati" suspicion?

      March 1, 2013 at 3:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, Doc. There are numerous azzholes. But there are only a few who show up purely to chant Chard's praises. Very few. And they have very similar styles.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:47 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      I hope at this point you've realized you are using "begging the question" wrong as a fallacy when applying it here.

      just for kicks ,

      "1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel"

      - Your first premise (1) is false. The "evidence" you continually provide is faulty and relies heavily on assumption and implication with no grounding in truth.

      Your second premise (2) is opinion and unsubstaniated. People have shown they can believe in something or someone in lieu of evidence (whether its religious or otherwise). A better premise in this instance would be "(P) For something to be factually true it must have solid empiracle evidence. "

      The last conclusion is fine in its logic as you reached a sound conclusion based the preceding premises or "A + B = C"

      You state that it is not logically valid and you are correct only because A and B are not true, which makes C not true. However based soley on how you reached C, the argument is logically sound.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm |
    • Really-O?

      True and valid syllogism:
      All mortals die.
      Some mortals are men.
      Some men die.

      False and invalid syllogism:
      All two-door coupes are red.
      John has a red coupe.
      John's coupe has two-doors.

      True, but invalid syllogism (true because John's car is red)
      Some two-door coupes are red.
      John has a two-door coupe.
      John's car is red.

      Unfortunately Chad will never understand.

      March 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad: "atheists have this utterly irrational belief that there is only one Christian on the internet :-)"

      Chad: "Absolutley!"

      March 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Saraswati does not resemble Chard as far as I can see. For one thing, Sara doesn't pull the smirky, smarmy, sh!tty crap Chard does. I haven't seen Sara say things like "why don't you read" or "pretty basic stuff."

      March 1, 2013 at 4:46 pm |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "I also don’t view your example as valid. You would have to invert premise #2. This is not a parallel argument to the original."

      @Chad "I dont see that at all, stated again: Do you feel that both of these arguments are valid?

      ==arg 1==
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel
      ==arg 2==
      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any [gods].

      ===========
      @saraswati " It’s still logically sound.”"

      @Chad "Even if the logical structure WERE valid (which it isnt), that argument STILL isnt sound, as the premises arent true."

      March 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      What is "evidence" anyway?

      March 1, 2013 at 5:07 pm |
    • Chad

      Evidence:
      – That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
      – The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
      – A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment

      Evidence does NOT have to establish the truth of the proposition to be called "evidence". In other words, you can reject the evidence as being insufficient, but it is still evidence. It doesnt stop being evidence just because you dont feel it warrants the conclusion being posited.

      March 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      Back to ignoring me then huh? It's fine, I'll keep pointing out where you are wrong and hopefully something will seep in.

      "1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel"

      What Saraswati is pointing out is that your first premise should be "to believe in something one should have evidence", it's the most basic premise you are saying (however false) THEN you can state your second premise "there is evidence of the god of israel". Once you have set those two premises then you can draw the conclusion "there is reason to believe in the god of israel"

      This is sound logic as the conclusion is deducted from the given premises. What you have stated however is an inversion of the two premises and it's confusingly stated. Ditto with your second example.

      Further more, belief does not demand evidence so your second premise "to believe in something one should have evidence" is faulty.

      March 1, 2013 at 5:15 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      The most fascinating thing about you is your ability to post definitions about specific topics (evidence, belief, ect...) and point out true statements like, "you can reject the evidence as being insufficient, but it is still evidence. It doesnt stop being evidence just because you dont feel it warrants the conclusion being posited." or "If there is no evidence, to believe in God is purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?" but somehow don't apply this to your own line of thinking but rather misapply it to your debating opposites.

      Your idea that evidence doesn't stop being evidence just because a person doesn't like the conclusion but you still have yet to grasp that what you have presented so far still can not be counted as evidence insofar as proof for your particular god. The "evidence" you post is either quotations (fine tuning quotes ad naseum) and demand people to draw the same conclusion because its an appeal to authority or you state unsubstantiated evidence as fact (empty tomb) and claim it to be fact using confirmation bias (the bible is true so the tomb must have been empty).

      Why is it that you are so blinded by your own religion and cognitive dissonance that you can't apply the rigorousness your using on why a person is an atheist to believers and why they choose to believe?

      March 1, 2013 at 5:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chuckles “What Saraswati is pointing out is that your first premise should be "to believe in something one should have evidence", it's the most basic premise you are saying (however false) THEN you can state your second premise "there is evidence of the god of israel". Once you have set those two premises then you can draw the conclusion "there is reason to believe in the god of israel"

      @Chad “it is exhausting talking to you because you never ever seem to understand the argument.

      A. saraswati didn’t say anything about the first premise, she said “You would have to invert premise #2”

      B. premises aren’t reliant on each other, there is no such thing as “THEN you can state your second premise”

      C. You think I am advancing this argument as validly structured, I am not. You completely missed the point I was making. You don’t understand that I view this argument as fallacious in structure, it is begging the question because the conclusion is one of the premises (albeit slightly reformatted). I am not as serting that this is a validly structured argument.
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel

      D. You completely misunderstood what Saraswati objected to, she is saying that to create a parallel argument, I would have to structure it thus (inverting the second premise):
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To not believe in something one should not have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel

      March 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm |
    • Chuckles

      @Chad

      You only find it exhausting because you purposefully misunderstand me. It would be a lot easier for both of us if you could actually read.

      "B. premises aren’t reliant on each other, there is no such thing as “THEN you can state your second premise”
      - I never said they were reliant on each other, I was merely pointing out it was confusingly stated.

      "You don’t understand that I view this argument as fallacious in structure, it is begging the question because the conclusion is one of the premises (albeit slightly reformatted). I am not as serting that this is a validly structured argument."
      - Actually I pointed out that I ackowledged you also did not believe in the validity of it, I also pointed out that this is *still* not a begging the question fallacy. As you have defined the fallacy a number of times I won't do it again here but the long and short of it is it's a fallacy that a conclusion is built upon a false premise. What you keep pointing out though is what you consider a premise is what is actually being debating, namely "is there a god?". Since no one has adequately proven whether there is a god or not (no matter how much you believe you alone posess the ability to prove god when all others have failed) you can't say that the premise is faulty in a statement like, "the bible is not true because god does not exist". You would say that is begging the question because the premise "god does not exist" is faulty but the same can be said when you say "the bible is 100% true because god exists". I believe your premise "god exists" is faulty because you have yet to adequately give empiracle evidence devoid of appealing to authority and assumption. This brings us back to your inadequate "evidence" which you repeatedly believe is real evidence that atheists dismiss because of their atheism rather than actually understand why what you provide is not real evidence in the first place.

      At this point it is safe to say that any argument built on the existance of god will be challenged whether you believe he exists or not. Every explanation given is based on someone believing god exists or not which makes this confirmation bias and not begging the question.

      I guess this all leads to one question, do you believe that you, Chad, are committing the same fallacies that you think atheists are also committing? or do you think when you say that the god of the bible exists because there was an empty tomb (which has a number of fallacies packed within it) is somehow immune to bias and fallacy?

      March 1, 2013 at 7:15 pm |
    • OK

      Who wants to bet Chad's going to run to the internet to paste a reply that won't address Chuckles questions.

      I am betting Chad's gong to post more nonsense. The more this kid post the more he looses all creditability.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm |
    • Orange County

      Methinks, Chad and Chuckles need to go out and have a drink or watch a movie together and just chill out. Chuckles- just chill out!

      March 1, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • Chad

      Well, at least you figured out that you completely misunderstood what saraswati was saying..

      @Chuckles "s it's a fallacy that a conclusion is built upon a false premise"
      @Chad "are you saying that the begging the question fallacy is one where the conclusion is built upon a false premise?"

      =====
      once again, you completely misunderstand WHY this argument is fallacious in structure:
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel

      until you figure out what I am saying, it is pointless to try and talk with you.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • Hubert

      If you accept Chad's premises the argument is logically sound. the problem is that p1 is false.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:35 pm |
    • Ummmm

      @OK

      You sort of won, Chad skips over and ignores the hard questions.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • Billybob

      What does p and c stand for ? My god what is this crap.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • Robert

      "the problem is that p1 is false."

      Chad's not smart enough to understand that.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:38 pm |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      Actually what I meant by inverting #2 was

      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      I meant inverting the direction, not making it negative. Sorry that wasn't clear.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:40 pm |
    • Chad

      so, you feel this argument is validly structured?
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      When it comes to evidence for the god of the bible, there is plenty, and that evidence points to the impossibility of that being's existence. When considering evidence of biblegod, the only rational conclusion is that it does not exist; all other conclusions are not based on evidence, but on the desire that the evidence be wrong.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
    • Yup

      so, you feel this argument is validly structured?
      1) (P) There is evidence of the Santa Claus
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in Santa Claus.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Getting back to "what is evidence", perhaps one of these?

      P1) Evidence compels belief.
      P2) There is evidence that the God of Israel is real
      C) You are compelled to believe that the God of Israel is real
      ________________________________________________

      P1) Evidence establishes that you ought to believe
      P2) There is evidence that the God of Israel is real
      C) You ought to believe that the God of Israel is real

      __________________________________________

      P1) Evidence justifies belief
      P2) There is evidence that the God of Israel is real
      P3) You believe that the God of Israel is real
      C) Your belief in the God of Israel is justified

      Gettier's problem on justification

      P1) Evidence justifies belief
      P2) There is evidence that the God of Israel is real that consists of false information, but such that no one can determine that it is false
      P3) You believe that the God of Israel is real
      C) Your belief in the God of Israel is justified

      March 1, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
    • Hubert

      Yes that is a classic argument structure, it's valid.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
    • Chad

      @saraswati,

      I was wondering which approach you would take given the equivalent argument structures.. Acknowledge that they were begging the question and therefor repudiate your earlier argument (arg 1), or continue to claim validity thereby succ umbing to the inescapable conclusion of the second.

      ==arg 1==
      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any [gods].

      ==arg 2==
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      This is problematic:
      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any [gods].

      (3) Does not follow. You need this: evidence and only evidence provides a reason to believe there are gods.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • Saraswati

      @Chad,

      "Acknowledge that they were begging the question and therefor repudiate your earlier argument (arg 1), or continue to claim validity thereby succ umbing to the inescapable conclusion of the second."

      They are both valid, but won't both be sound or true. But really this gets a bit silly because I don't actually agree with the use of language in either as they are dependent on subjective terms and I have have no interest in promoting either argument...so done for me on this one.

      Interesting conversation, including the whole "Are Saraswati and Chad the same person" bit which kind of made my day entertainment-wise. Well, that and finally getting the new Psych episode.

      March 2, 2013 at 6:53 am |
    • Saraswati

      @TTTOO, Yes, the language should be tightened on that one.

      March 2, 2013 at 6:58 am |
    • JMEF

      Sara...
      As much as I enjoy reading your debate with Chad it is futile because Chad is disingenious. Chad has reached his conclusion that the God of isreal is real and will use every arguement that the christian apologists have come up with to attempt to prove his point. Chad's "If there is no evidence, to believe in God is a purposeful delusion. How could that possibly be justified?" is the most honest statement he has ever made on this blog. Chad has faith, Oxford definition, "a strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

      March 2, 2013 at 7:49 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      JMEF-
      There are people more familiar with Chad's posts than I am. It does seem, and I think Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son has commented on this recently, that Chad doesn't say his belief is based on spiritual apprehension or that he has a tangible personal relationship with his God. He doesn't know if his God loves him. How sad.

      March 2, 2013 at 8:32 am |
    • JMEF

      TTOO
      Yes, I agree, it would be hard for even a god to love Chad. Chad did mention that even his own family ridiculed him when his delusion took hold of him. Perhaps the Chad thrives on ridicule, he comes back to this blog every day to get more.

      March 2, 2013 at 8:46 am |
    • Dr Steven Hahaha, PhD

      Chad:

      Fantastic leading question in that last post of yours. Excellent!

      March 2, 2013 at 9:40 am |
    • Chad

      @Saraswati "They are both valid,"

      @Chad "so:
      – if this is a validly structured argument, and
      – evidence does not need to be of sufficient nature to compel all persons to believe that it's proposition has been established to be called evidence
      – then, you would acknowledge that there is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      right?

      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Now Chad's arguing over how to argue.

      Do you get enjoyment from this, Chard?

      March 2, 2013 at 12:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      1) (P) Necessary and sufficient evidence is required for acceptance that an hypothesis is probable.
      2) (P) There is insufficient evidence supporting the hypothesis that the god of Israel exist.
      3) (C) The god of Israel hypothesis cannot be accepted as probable.

      To date, there is no empirical evidence supporting the claim that the god of Israel exists. None. No other reason is needed for suspension of acceptance of the hypothesis.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Chad, any evidence of the reality of the God of Israel is reason to believe in it by one acceptable definition of evidence. A reason to believe in the reality of the God of Israel may be accompanied by other reasons you may have to not believe in the reality of the God of Israel and these may prevail. Or the reason you have to believe may not be sufficient in itself to bring about belief. Having a reason to believe something is weaker than the case where you ought to believe, which is weaker than the case where you are compelled to believe.

      I'm curious, are you trying to get to a justified belief?

      March 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm |
    • Chad

      Nothing about "empirical evidence" in the argument, since we agree there is evidence (but you dont find it compelling), then we can agree that the conclusion holds and there is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Good afternoon Really-O? and TTTPS-

      My Yorkie loves to wrestle over a little ball tied up in a sock. This is nearly as much fun.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –

      I intentionally did not mention empirical evidence in my syllogism (did you bother reading before replying?) in anticipation of your inevitable equivocation. The last three lines of my post were just an in-you-face....hope you enjoyed it.

      March 2, 2013 at 12:59 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "there is reason to believe in the God of Israel."

      No, there isn't. You just choose to do so.

      @TTTOO: Your adorable Yorkie could probably figure out how to get the ball out of the sock before Chad could manage it. And he'd look way cuter doing so.

      March 2, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...also, Chad, did you see the little ditty in my syllogism regarding necessary and sufficient evidence being required? Sure you did...you just ignored it because it would be insane to assert that there is sufficient evidence supporting the existence of any god, including yours.

      March 2, 2013 at 1:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son –

      Actually, there are many reasons to believe in the god-of-choice, it's just that none of the reasons are good.

      March 2, 2013 at 1:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O?

      so, are you rejecting this argument as valid? The argument that @sarasawti indicated was valid?
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 2, 2013 at 6:09 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Chad –

      That syllogism is both false and invalid.

      March 3, 2013 at 12:43 pm |
    • Chad

      so then, you also consider arg 1 invalid in structure?

      ==arg 1==
      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any [gods].

      ==arg 2==
      1) (P) There is evidence of the God of Israel.
      2) (P) If you have evidence of something, you have reason to (or should) believe.
      3) (C)There is reason to believe in the God of Israel.

      March 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Both syllogisms are false and invalid. Take a university course in logic.

      March 3, 2013 at 1:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "Both syllogisms are false and invalid."

      => What makes this argument invalid?

      ==arg 1==
      1) (P) There is no evidence of any gods.
      2) (P) To believe in something one should have evidence
      3) (C)There is no reason to believe there are any [gods].

      March 3, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      (2) is defective, Chad. To get to (3) you need something like

      2) (P) Evidence and only evidence provides a reason for belief.

      Not everyone will swallow that.

      March 3, 2013 at 2:04 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      It occurred to me that you only need
      2) (P) Evidence is necessary for there to be a reason for belief.

      That is, necessary is needed, not necessary and sufficient.

      March 3, 2013 at 2:35 pm |
  9. jax

    REAL!

    March 1, 2013 at 8:59 am |
    • End Religion

      NOT!

      March 1, 2013 at 9:00 am |
  10. John

    Science lied, nothing has never made anything they claimed it did. Every head of science blasphemes against God, and the mixed heads of science are just as negligent in not proclaiming the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as the creator. It is a fact that God made everything. He said he did, and I believe him.

    March 1, 2013 at 8:29 am |
    • 6666666666666

      Ditch Adam and Eve the fake origin story john

      March 1, 2013 at 8:39 am |
    • John

      The Adam and Eve history is for a local area, and the lineage after in the bible is for the people that were born later. It is NOT the entire world... just that lineage that grew over time... and here we are... some in that lineage, and some not.

      Stop wasting time, get a bible and read it, start with the New Testament, then read the Old Testament. Time is ticking... hurry.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:50 am |
    • midwest rail

      "......some in that lineage, and some not." Uh, what ??

      March 1, 2013 at 8:52 am |
    • End Religion

      Religious absurdity: talking snakes, parting seas with the wave of a hand, walking on water, that average citizens can turn into a pillar of salt, that unicorns and fire-breathing monsters and sky fairies are real, that 2 of every animal on the planet PLUS all the food they need for at least 40 days and 40 nights fit into a boat that had been built by 1 man and was crewed by maybe 8 people, that a flood covered the world and then just sorta dried up somehow, that a dude with horns and a tail lives beneath the earth's crust, that a white dude with a big white beard lives in the clouds, that this sky fairy (all powerful, all knowing and inerrant) r@ped a 12 year old virgin and that this is somehow seen as virtuous, that the king of fairies (who had a white son with blue eyes in the medieval middle east, by the way) murdered his own son and himself for his own pleasure and again that human sacrifice is somehow virtuous, that this absurd person (apparently a winged zombie) arose after death and flew into the sky to be with daddy.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:58 am |
    • 6666666666666

      John

      Adam and Eve & talking snake (devil) fake = no devil (evil)

      March 1, 2013 at 9:01 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      So only people in the Middle East are made of dirt and spare-ribs and the rest of the world came to be via Darwin's 5 laws of Evolution?
      But The Book of Mormon says that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and it can't be wrong – it says right on the cover that it's another testament of Jesus Christ.
      This is all so confusing.
      But I am no theologan after all. Who am I to try and eff the ineffable – like how exactly a human being survived several days in an aquatic creature's digestive tract.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:01 am |
    • John

      Adam and Eve had two sons named Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of Abel and didn't think anyone would find out. Cain later left after God confronted him over killing Abel. Abel then told God that EVERYONE that found him would slay him.... everyone outside that local land. Cain then left the local area and found a WIFE elsewhere... outside that local area.

      There is the lineage of Adam... and everyone else is their own lineages. Adam was created special in that local wilderness area that God turned into a garden, special for Adam.... and Eve.... and she messed up... then he did... etc...

      March 1, 2013 at 9:02 am |
    • John

      ER, all of those have been detailed before. Noah was the local land. Unicorns is a tranalstion issue, it should be an ox, etc...

      March 1, 2013 at 9:06 am |
    • Saraswati

      @John,

      "There is the lineage of Adam... and everyone else is their own lineages. Adam was created special in that local wilderness area that God turned into a garden, special for Adam.... and Eve.... and she messed up... then he did... etc..."

      Does this mean only the people of that lineage have original sin or do you not believe in that?

      March 1, 2013 at 9:09 am |
    • midwest rail

      And that wife of Cain's came from ....where ?

      March 1, 2013 at 9:09 am |
    • Science

      To John

      Doc pionted it out to you about Adams rib bone so....

      Adam had to POKE himself HARD to create Eve, sounds really hard tto do.

      Paece

      March 1, 2013 at 9:10 am |
    • John

      Sara, it says in the text, EVERYONE, and that Cain found a wife after he LEFT the area. What you are missing is that God is right now in his 7th creation period of time... not a 24 hour day. Humans were created in that 6th creation period of time. That is my understanding of what it says in the text. And that 6th creation period of time is more than enough for God to make people all over the world, in what ever manner he wants to make them. But the account only details Adam and Eve onwards for humans and their interaction as a lineage, with others. IMO, that's what it is saying.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:19 am |
    • JMEF

      midwest..
      Don't make John's brain hurt. He can't figure out that if his god created man, how could gods creations already have neighbours just like them? The Chads, Tophers, fred, et al still maintain there are no contradictions of their delusion; they are beyond reason and logic,

      March 1, 2013 at 9:22 am |
    • clarity

      John dear, a triangle has three sides. The number seven and three don't play nice with each other – you need to calm down and have a cup of tea to clear your mind. I hope you're not betting on horses with just these numbers.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:25 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      So you're not a biblical literalist, I take it – are you a young earth creationist?

      March 1, 2013 at 9:27 am |
    • John

      The 7 "days" of Genesis can be read as long periods of time each. God is in his 7th creation period of time... he's resting from all the work over those billions of years... that is my understanding of it.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:34 am |
    • JMEF

      John
      You really ought to get a DNA profile done, if anyone has Neandrathal genes in their make up it must be you, more than just a few, I bet. So the Cain branch must be your ancestors as he probably had to mate with a Sasquatch type. LOL

      March 1, 2013 at 9:35 am |
    • John

      JMEF, get this clear in your mind: I know God exists, both from what he said in the bible, and... I know.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:42 am |
    • Deano

      John is... deluded.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:49 am |
    • Science

      John Really

      Please upload a current picture from 2013 OK

      And the camera won't melt.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:51 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      And what of Noah's Flood?
      Regardless of what happened in the Garden, after The Flood there were only 3 breeding pairs of humans left over, with the males being 1st order relatvies (Noah had no more kids – and who can blame him? I'd doubt I'll be getting much action when I'm 600 years old).

      March 1, 2013 at 9:52 am |
    • Saraswati

      @John,

      Thanks for the clarification.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:54 am |
    • John

      S, you take all this time to deny God, when it would benefit you most, to find him.

      March 1, 2013 at 9:56 am |
    • John

      DV, the flood was a local area. In the source it reads fine... english, oh well.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:00 am |
    • Science

      Hey John

      The ooze at the swamps where the stony iron meteorites are laying is a clue.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:04 am |
    • == o ==

      It looks as though we have another disgruntled ex Evangelical Fortune Cookie Co. "writer" (John).

      March 1, 2013 at 10:06 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      So Genesis 7:19–23 is a mistranslation?
      " And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits4 deep. And aall flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land bin whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark."

      And here I though that Rabbinical Theologans had preserved their Holy Book in the original Hebrew and understood how to translate it after all these thousands of years of study.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:08 am |
    • Methinks, I know it all!

      John-You suggested, 'find God to someone else on this thread.
      How does someone 'find' God if they were raised in another belief system? a Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu for example.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:10 am |
    • John

      Sara, my understanding is that Adam and Eve would have lived on if they had not eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when they did that, God changed them such that they would later die.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • clarity

      Clue #93403593856 that the Bible is BS: when someone tries to explain unexplainable BS in the Bible with even more unexplainable BS.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:16 am |
    • John

      DV, if it's a local valley with flooding of local hills to 22 feet, that's enough to kill everyone in the local area without an ark to float in. I don't see why that's an issue, local flooding happens on a grand scale every now and then... and kills a lot of people when it does.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:18 am |
    • Bob

      John, thanks for more of the horror stories about your murderous god monster and his killing sprees. Sounds like quite the ass hole.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:21 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      Perhaps some emphasis on the relevant terms is needed.
      "And the waters prevailed so mightily onTHE EARTH that ALLthe high mountains under the WHOLE HEAVEN were covered."
      Were there only mountains in Noah's part of the world back then? Or perhaps we're in orbital rotation around Heaven and it only covers a portion of the Earth at any given time?

      The tough part in citing the Bible as Truth is that it can be interpreted in so many different ways that since it was written, people have been using it to justify whatever absurdities they can devise since it was written.
      To wit:
      o GOD HATES LEFT HANDED PEOPLE
      You have a choice not to act on your wicked left-handedness and live a godly life!
      "A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left."
      – Ecclesiastes 10:2
      "The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted."
      – Psalm 118 vv15,16
      Those of us who know and follow the true word of Christ will be laughing from up in heaven while you lefties fry forever.
      Better start using that right hand before Judgement day or you'll be sorry!

      March 1, 2013 at 10:25 am |
    • John

      DV, you are reading an english translation, it reads fine as a local land. Study to show theyself approved... find it.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • Science

      Hey Doc

      What about us poor bas-tards that can use both hands.

      LOL

      March 1, 2013 at 10:42 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @John
      How's your Hebrew?
      Genesis 7:19

      וְהַמַּיִם גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד עַל־הָאָרֶץ וַיְכֻסּוּ כָּל־הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים אֲשֶׁר־תַּחַת כָּל־הַשָּׁמָיִם

      w'haMayim Gäv'rû m'od m'od al-hääretz way'khuŠû Käl-hehäriym haG'vohiym ásher-Tachat Käl-haSHämäyim

      The exact translation into english is:
      And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that unde rthe whole heaven were covered.

      Thanks to thousands of years of diligence on the part of Rabbis all over the world, we have an excellent understanding of Ancient Hebrew. Why do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls were translated and authenticated so quickly?

      Biblical scholars have a harder time with the Greek of teh New Testament than with the Hebrew of the old.
      For example: What is the english translation of "malakoi" and "ar/senkotai"?
      These are important terms to know since the Bible's condemnation of ho/mose/xuality rests primarily on the understanding of these terms.
      AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
      'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
      MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators." Only in the 20th century has it been understood as a reference to hom.ose.xuality.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:53 am |
    • Jesus

      @John

      The summit of Mount Ararat (the one where the ark came to rest in Genesis 8:4 And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ) stands at 16,854 ft. if this mountain was under 20 feet of water, then it stands to reason that anything else on the planet at or below 16,874 feet would have been under water as well.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • JMEF

      John
      I just love the "you aren't reading the right translation" gambit the christian apologists have come up with. Like the tobacco companies, you can pay any amount of "experts" to say whay you want them to say, if you pay them enough. Whether Greek, Latin or Hebrew translating BS mumbo jumbo and the supernatural into English is still mumbo jumbo.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:07 am |
    • lol??

      John sayz,
      "It is NOT the entire world... just that lineage that grew over time... and here we are... some in that lineage, and some not."................................... So yer sayin' there's more than one human race?? Sounds racist. You have any verses to back up yer conjecture??

      March 1, 2013 at 11:14 am |
    • John

      Hi lol??, these might be what you're referring to:

      Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
      Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

      The sons of God would be related to Adam, in that Adam was formed special by God in the wilderness he changed into the garden Eden. That lineage would then be tracked in the bible, the rest would be outside it.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:35 am |
    • Saraswati

      "The summit of Mount Ararat (the one where the ark came to rest in Genesis 8:4 And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. ) stands at 16,854 ft. if this mountain was under 20 feet of water, then it stands to reason that anything else on the planet at or below 16,874 feet would have been under water as well."

      Even the most pessimistic global warming models won't get water up that high – there simply isn't enough. Anywhere. You need to get L4H and here "the earth was flatte thenr and had hidden water" theories on board to try and make that one fly.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:40 am |
    • lol??

      No John, I didn't reference any. What you just quoted doesn't fit, either. That's a different subject but the cause of the flood.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:50 am |
    • Akira

      It amuses me how lol?? even attacks other Christians. Now she has become a religious bigot as well? My, my. Can't keep all of her hats on straight. Must be tough to live up to lol??'S exacting standards, as they change from minute to minute.

      March 1, 2013 at 11:56 am |
    • John

      Hi lol??, I know that it says God was making man in the 6th creation period of time (called a day in the translation):

      Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

      So during that time, all races could be replensishing the earth, and then Adam is said to be specially created by God in a wilderness that he changed into a garden. There is a verse saying the book is for Adam onwards:

      Gen 5:1 This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

      Do you have a verse that shows the races?

      March 1, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Science

      Yea Akira

      Get em going and does mot take long for the arc to sink !

      March 1, 2013 at 12:29 pm |
    • lol??

      John, in Gen 6, the sons of God referenced have to be fallen angels. Here's a page that supports this view with no endorsement of that org on my part.: http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html My position is that there is one human race.

      March 1, 2013 at 4:42 pm |
  11. joep222

    Jesus is God!

    March 1, 2013 at 7:05 am |
    • End Religion

      neither exist

      March 1, 2013 at 7:15 am |
  12. The Demon Deacon

    Jesus is the reason why we have been plagued with the vicar of christ on earth for 2000 years. The torture, murder, deception, discrimination, se.x abuse, subjugation of women, greed, etc. perpatrated by these so called holy men is criminal. Follow the teachings of christ if you buy into the program but do not support the scam artists that hustle you for your money. Belief in christ is not the problem, no matter how foolish, it is the religions.

    March 1, 2013 at 6:53 am |
    • End Religion

      Religion and over-tanning are crimes against humanity.

      March 1, 2013 at 6:59 am |
    • joep222

      You cannot blame the sin of man on Jesus Christ.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:09 am |
    • End Religion

      Joe, why can't we blame JC? It's not like he's going to show up to stop us, right? Nanny-nanny boo boo, stick JC's head in doodoo...

      March 1, 2013 at 7:14 am |
    • The Demon Deacon

      joep22
      Blame JC, for the sins of man, did not think I did. It is the sins of the scam artists that have used the stories of JC for their own power and wealth, including todays evangies. Would love to see the believers go back to their roots and commune in small groups in nature and their homes and tear dowh the churches and cathedrals that would be an affront to JC if he ever did make a comeback, assuming one believe in the whole concept.

      March 1, 2013 at 7:28 am |
    • Jesus

      @joep222
      You cannot blame the sin of man on Jesus Christ.

      Psalm 139:4
      Even before a word is on my tongue,
      behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

      If god knows all, then everything is predestined. Free will is nothing more than an illusion. Even this comment is god’s will. Man’s sins are all part of god’s master plan, so yes in fact; we can blame JC for it.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:41 am |
    • lol??

      DD, the catholic church is the original gubmint church. Your other antichrist pals must agree with you. They ain't much on truth or accuracy. No sin, no lying, no responsibility. widdle childish bigots

      March 1, 2013 at 10:34 am |
    • clarity

      And the original "gubmint church" is responsible for spreading the unsupportable lies about the "magic" of the Jesus character lol?? idiot. So regardless of who would be spreading such newer fable, it was bound to be only for profit and control. Diabolical mimicry; plagiarized stories; messy.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:46 am |
    • lol??

      Escaping European gubmint churches wasn't gud enuff fer the pwogwessives, Clarity. They had to turn the gubmint into one, all powerful and a law fer every purpose. Name one thing the hand of da gubmint god doesn't touch. bigot

      March 1, 2013 at 11:42 am |
  13. lol??

    The KKK lives! Korrupt Kweer Keynesians

    March 1, 2013 at 3:39 am |
    • the AnViL

      interesting to note, the KKK is literally an xian organization.

      how funny is that??

      lol??

      March 1, 2013 at 4:30 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      There quite a number of white supremacist Christian groups in the US like the KKK, the Aryan Nations, The Aryan Republican Army, The Phineas Priesthood, The Covenant, The Sword and the Arm of the Lord....
      So who is the True Scotsman?

      March 1, 2013 at 8:44 am |
    • lol??

      It was a Democratic org, you idiot bigot. Ask the dead Sen Byrd bwain. All the pols in DC were fallin' all over each other singin' his praises at his funeral fer bring home the bacon.

      March 1, 2013 at 10:39 am |
  14. sam stone

    savior from what? his daddy's/his own temper tantrum?

    March 1, 2013 at 3:09 am |
    • Jesus

      Only I can save you from me.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:33 am |
    • lol??

      Americult is not big on payin' debt. They want somebody else to pay in a corrupt kweer keynesian sort of way.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:36 am |
    • Robert Brown

      sam stone,

      More like saving you from yourself. Peace.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:25 am |
    • sam stone

      robert: i do not need to be saved. not from myself, and not from a vindictive iron age cartoon character

      March 1, 2013 at 10:52 am |
  15. Topher

    Jesus is ... the good shepherd.

    “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11)

    March 1, 2013 at 1:51 am |
    • .

      "I am the Walrus"

      -John Lennon

      March 1, 2013 at 2:13 am |
    • Qwerty Elemeno

      Okay seriously, what idiot shepherd would lay down his life for a sheep?

      And of course, Topher's shepherd got to pick his life right back up again, in what has to be the lamest non-sacrifice ever.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:38 am |
    • End Religion

      If you believe in god and hell then there is no question god sends people to hell if they don't play his game properly. He supposedly set the game in motion and forces one to choose.

      Just like Jigsaw from the movie Saw, god supposedly puts a game in motion, forcing people to choose his way or torture. While the poor cattle in the movie indeed get to "exercise free will" they've still been bound into a game against their choice, then forced to play by its rules.

      And you call this god a loving god... lol.. He's a horror movie monster.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:52 am |
    • sam stone

      the shepherd fleeces the sheep, shears them and eventually kills them for their meat.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:59 am |
    • sam stone

      come on, qwerty, jesus had a bad weekend for your sins

      March 1, 2013 at 3:01 am |
    • Qwerty Elemeno

      No, he chose to have a bad day, slept in a couple days, then came back in four different ways in four different gospels just to wow the yokels.

      March 1, 2013 at 3:06 am |
    • Science

      Hey Topher

      Looks like your god is stuck in a hole topher.

      Peace

      March 1, 2013 at 5:23 am |
    • 6666666666666

      To Topher

      Ditch Adam and Eve the fake origin story.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:32 am |
  16. Topher

    Jesus is ... the way, the truth and the life.

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

    “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

    March 1, 2013 at 1:36 am |
    • End Religion

      Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn’t care to, or he doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

      March 1, 2013 at 2:53 am |
    • sam stone

      why would anyone want to spend eternity with that vindictive pr1ck?

      March 1, 2013 at 3:02 am |
    • Robert Brown

      End Religion,
      Luke 13
      4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?
      5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

      This was the response of Jesus when they were asking him about sins. People tend to say when something bad happens to someone that they had done some bad sin and God is punishing them, some blame God, or claim he doesn’t exist when bad things happen. He was telling them we are all sinners and unless we repent we all will perish.

      Bad things happen because people in the flesh do bad things. Also, the devil is loose in the earth seeking whom he may devour.

      God does what he wants and he doesn’t answer to you, he can stop catastrophes and he is very caring. For God so loved the world…..

      You are correct in that we should choose wisely. Peace.

      March 1, 2013 at 8:51 am |
  17. Topher

    Jesus is ... the vine.

    “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

    March 1, 2013 at 1:30 am |
    • Rollo Tomasi

      Topher is a jabbering toady trying to brownnose his way into heaven.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • .

      You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy.

      -Charles Manson

      March 1, 2013 at 1:45 am |
    • sam stone

      topher is a snivelling coward

      March 1, 2013 at 3:03 am |
  18. Topher

    Jesus is ... "the resurrection and the life."

    "Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”"

    March 1, 2013 at 1:19 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      nope

      March 1, 2013 at 1:24 am |
    • No evidence for any deity

      Jesus is . . . groupthink at its worst.

      Topher is . . . delusional.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:28 am |
  19. the AnViL

    jebus is the flatly fictional figurehead for an ancient middle eastern slave myth/cult which instills and propagates slave mentality in its adherents.

    like all monotheistic religions – the jebus myth/cult is predicate on ignorance and division – which is perfect evidence of its complete and total lack of divinity.

    tolerance of religious idiocy has to end.... and it is.
    .
    .
    ..
    .
    .

    ch'ch'cha'aaa'aaaaaaaaaa ahhhhhhhhhhhh

    March 1, 2013 at 1:10 am |
    • End Religion

      wait, you mean the church has been perpetuating a lie for thousands of years? oh dear...

      March 1, 2013 at 1:15 am |
  20. Britt

     If all you naysayers have a problem with Faith, take it up with The Creator of the Universe, The Lord Jesus Christ.

    March 1, 2013 at 12:58 am |
    • End Religion

      No such creature exists.

      March 1, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • Blessed are the Cheesemakers

      And explain how the devil could tempt Jesus with his own creation?

      March 1, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • End Religion

      Isn't it just the most ludicrous idea? The whole shebang is so silly. A god creates evil, the universe and all in it, knows every event before it happens and somehow we're supposed to believe he sent himself and was somehow tempted by the sham he himself created all while knowing the outcome. lol... I just... I mean.... children literally can see how silly this is and yet adults crave respect for it?

      March 1, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • sam stone

      i got no major problem with individual faith. i do have a big problem with inbred fvcks blah, blah, blah-ing empty proxy threats of hell

      March 1, 2013 at 3:06 am |
    • Mirosal

      So tell us how can your jeebus guy have created the Universe, when it was already in existence when he was supposedly "born"? (if he ever existed in the first place)

      March 1, 2013 at 4:23 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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.