Why God is Imaginary

[randedge]

Originally posted by Hakkola
I believe in all the facts presented by science, I also believe in God.

That said, why are all these Athiests trying to push their beliefs onto me? It's annoying.

Y'know what? I'm an atheist and I AGREE.


Leave the quiet and peaceful theists alone.

[icecreamvan]

I think that God is imaginary but I'm not going to impose my belief on you like some of those religious zealots.

Religion's just propaganda.

[stevo 27]

i don't trust "documents" that are 2000 years old about
some "son of god" but that is only my opinion
i see this as a discusion not an argument or a debate
im not here to try and convert anyone

im not saying im right and im not sayin im wrong

[TegLover]

Originally posted by 3g4u


You consider the last 50 years "ancient times"

89coupe = douche

No point in arguing over the internet, you are just wasting time and they are just getting more ignorant.

/end

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by 89coupe


This has nothing to do with religion really. It has to do with "science" vs "God".

Which holds more clout.

Science chooses to find the answer and is willing to modify the answer if new information is presented.

God offers no answers and asks you to believe blindly.

Once again with the blanket statements..... BTW, you still haven't answered both my posts in regards to "God" being written for the first time in the 4th century AD.

[kylemitz]

Originally posted by lint


You can't fight religion with logic.

So your saying that religion has ABSOLUTELY no logic in it at all? Because im pretty sure you should be able to fight logic with logic. Religion is a waste of time in my oppinion, i believe in a higher power, but thats about it.

I believe the bible says that "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me". Well if he is such a great power how can he be a jealous of anything with lesser power?

by the way: this post is not to put down other peoples religions, just my oppinion, dont take it personally.

[msommers]

Every once in awhile this site really makes me laugh. You really need to be concerned with more important things than if I do or do not believe in a higher power. And even if I did, why do you need to constantly reinforce that "hey you're wrong, you're wasting your time." I find it entertaining how if someone posted on here, "Join the revolution, Jesus/Buddha etc is the way. What you think is wrong look and check it out," I'd be slandered/flamed till no end.

People believe what they want to believe, stop constantly bringing this shit up. Even if they are believing in something wrong, who cares. In Calgary, Alberta, Canada is it hurting if I believe in Buddhism and you believe Christianity? The answer is obviously no.

And before you jump to conclusions, yes I used to go to church. However, now I have personal choice, have not gone for a long time and really need proof to be persuaded. I just don't see it being a problem if someone believes in something or not.

[SNAATCH]

" 3,000 agreed with the Disciples on the day of Pentecost and believed Jesus Christ rose from the dead. A few days later, 5,000 more said, "We believe!" Then when Stephen was stoned, multitudes believed plus a large number of the Priests. The Priests were part of the religious establishment spreading the big lie that the body was stolen. But hey!!! The lie didn't fly, it crashed.
Don't try and tell me that Jerusalem believed Jesus body was stolen or that he never really died, they knew better. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of 10,000 people in the space of a few short weeks. They believed there was life after life. They were convinced that faith in Jesus would take them to Heaven. Behold what that small band of twelve has grown to in 2000 years. "

from http://www.newhope.bc.ca/digest11.htm

Do you really think his whole life was made up? You would have to be stupid to think he didn't walk this earth. Even if you didn't want to believe he was the son of god, you would have to be an idiot not to entertain the idea that he DID live. There is tons of evidence and witnesses. Google it up!

[01RedDX]

.

[SNAATCH]

You are right there is no physical evidence, but that shouldn't be relevant.

I just copy and pasted this from http://en.allexperts.com/q/Christian...us-existed.htm

Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected human history so remarkably? The reference work The Historians' History of the World observed: “The historical result of [Jesus'] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.”

Yes, think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. “Dates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,” explains The World Book Encyclopedia. “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).”

Critics, nevertheless, point out that all that we really know about Jesus is found in the Bible. No other contemporary records concerning him exist. But is this true?

Although references to Jesus Christ by early secular historians are meager, such references do exist.

Cornelius Tacitus, a respected first-century Roman historian, wrote: “The name [Christian] is derived from Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius.”

Suetonius and Pliny the Younger, other Roman writers of the time, also referred to Christ.

In addition, Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, wrote of James, whom he identified as “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

"EVIDENCE IN MUSEUM?"

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES, JOSEPHUS, BOOK XX, SEC. 200)

Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—THE COMPLETE WORKS OF TACITUS (NEW YORK, 1942), “THE ANNALS,” BOOK 15, PAR. 44.

With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, THE NEW ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus "(1976), MACROPÆDIA, VOL. 10, P. 145.

As it did with the Hebrew Scriptures, archaeology has brought to light many interesting artifacts in support of the inspired record contained in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

For instance –

Pontius Pilate Inscription. It was in 1961 that the first archaeological find was made with reference to Pontius Pilate. ( the person who put Jesus to death) This was a stone slab located at Caesarea, which bore in Latin the name of Pontius Pilate

To mention only one, as there are literally hundreds of artifacts relating to everything Jesus said and did. All the people Jesus mentioned, there is proof they existed, all the places he said he visited, there is proof these places did exist, and so on.

To put is simply, if we are to doubt the historicity of Jesus, we must also doubt the historicity of ones like, Alexander the Great and Napoleon, as there is more evidence of Jesus existence than of theirs.

[SNAATCH]

BIBLE ALL HEARSAY, WHERES THE PROOF?"

You have obviously never studied the bible, because if you did you would see why so many people have complete faith that it is the "Word of God" and despite it being translated again and again there are no additions, mistakes or errors.

I for one would not just put my faith and trust in any old book, I have studied it for 30 years now and believe me, it is not "hearsay" here are some examples of why I believe it is the word of God—

1. It is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future—something impossible for humans.

2. Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date

3. Its internal harmony is significant

This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.

How can we be sure the Bible has not been changed?

“In the number of ancient MSS. [manuscripts] attesting a writing, and in the number of years that had elapsed between the original and the attesting MSS., the Bible enjoys a decided advantage over classical writings [those of Homer, Plato, and others]. . . . Altogether classical MSS. are but a handful compared with Biblical. No ancient book is so well attested as the Bible.”—The Bible From the Beginning (New York, 1929), P. Marion Simms, pp. 74, 76.

A report published in 1971 shows that there are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures; the oldest dates back to the third century B.C.E. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are some 5,000 in Greek, the oldest dating back to the beginning of the second century C.E. There are also many copies of early translations into other languages

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Wrong, there is no factual evidence of any such man. There is plenty of documentation of his contemporaries such as Caesar, Cleopatra and many others. But no one has the slightest physical evidence to support the existence of Jesus, no Roman records, no manuscripts, everything that exists is hearsay written centuries after his alleged existence.

You know what......I love when people debate things... but I CANNOT deal with people simply making things up. Before you say something... Think, and perhaps do some research!!

- Do me a favour, and check Josephus (Roman Historian), Cornelius Tacitus (Roman Historian), Suetonius (Roman Historian)...... would you like me to continue.... because there are many more I can add to this list!

You know, debates like this are tough enough to get through, as both sides have very valid statements and comments. What makes it even more difficult is people spouting off when they really have no clue as to what they are saying. Honestly, did you even think about this before you said it? have you researched it?

[TegLover]

Originally posted by liquid1010


You know what......I love when people debate things... but I CANNOT deal with people simply making things up. Before you say something... Think, and perhaps do some research!!

werd, i love how some people watch a few documentaries or read a few blogs online and think they know all there is about religion and then for some to try and criticize it.

[89coupe]

I didn't post this to debate religion, I posted this to debate God vs Science.

How do you young people put it.

Science FTW

[A790]

Dude, nothing that you've said here actually quantifies the existence of God, Jesus, or anything else.

The bible CAN NOT and SHOULD NOT be used as a reference for its own legitimacy. I could write a book and quote that book all day long about how it's completely correct, etc., but at the end of the day it's a very biased source, isn't it?

How can you tell me that there are no additions, changes, or errors in the books of today versus the originals? That is surely impossible, as not only are you expecting me (an aethiest) to believe your word, but there's also no way that's true. Assuming that the bible was written thousands of years ago we can infer that the language that would have been used would have been very different from what we know and read today.

The result? Translation. Literal and subjective, for thousands of years. Go get 15 people, sit them down, and tell one a message. Have them each tell each other the message under the last person has the message, and then have them say the message out loud. Guess what? It's not the same message that you distributed, is it? Human nature, along with forgetfulness and otherwise always changes things.

Even if the bible WERE the word of god (and we managed to find a neutral, unbiased source to somehow confirm it), there's absolutely no plausible way that it has undergone so many translations without some kind of changes, even minute ones.

In regards to the three points that you address specifically, the logic there is flawed, hence relying on faith:

1) "It is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future—something impossible for humans."- How is that impossible for humans? I'll write a book all about future prophecies and whatnot. They don't have to come to pass, but the fact remains that I can still write it.

The bible is written in a way that is so vague that surely something comes to pass every now and again. Of course, when the statements are written in a way that they could mean litereally *anything*, why not?

2) "Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date" - I disagree here. Someone walking on water or turning water into wine is not scientifically sound. Nor is someone rising from the dead three days after death. Fantastic, yes, but elaborate story telling just the same.

What scientific elements in specific are you referring to?

3) "Its internal harmony is significant" - There is absolutely no way to prove that this is the case. Because of the age, popularity, and devotion to this faith there is no way for anyone to know that any manuscripts or materials produced are in fact legitmate or forgeries.

This is a case of "show me the proof" and I'll believe you, because guess what, unless you (and by you I mean Christianity in general) can produce undeniable, universal evidence (that does not reference a religious text), what you are saying here is hearsay.

Which reports are you referencing? Which studies are you talking about? I'm willing to bet that they are religious in orientation, background, or that they simply don't exist in a way that promotes legitimacy.

Sorry, but where's the proof? The burden is on Christianity to provide evidence of its legitimacy, not the other way around.

Originally posted by SNAATCH
BIBLE ALL HEARSAY, WHERES THE PROOF?"

You have obviously never studied the bible, because if you did you would see why so many people have complete faith that it is the "Word of God" and despite it being translated again and again there are no additions, mistakes or errors.

I for one would not just put my faith and trust in any old book, I have studied it for 30 years now and believe me, it is not "hearsay" here are some examples of why I believe it is the word of God—

1. It is filled with prophecies reflecting detailed knowledge of the future—something impossible for humans.

2. Its contents are scientifically sound on matters that human researchers discovered only at a later date

3. Its internal harmony is significant

This is especially so in view of the fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician. They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail. To appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.

How can we be sure the Bible has not been changed?

“In the number of ancient MSS. [manuscripts] attesting a writing, and in the number of years that had elapsed between the original and the attesting MSS., the Bible enjoys a decided advantage over classical writings [those of Homer, Plato, and others]. . . . Altogether classical MSS. are but a handful compared with Biblical. No ancient book is so well attested as the Bible.”—The Bible From the Beginning (New York, 1929), P. Marion Simms, pp. 74, 76.

A report published in 1971 shows that there are possibly 6,000 handwritten copies containing all or part of the Hebrew Scriptures; the oldest dates back to the third century B.C.E. Of the Christian Greek Scriptures, there are some 5,000 in Greek, the oldest dating back to the beginning of the second century C.E. There are also many copies of early translations into other languages

[A790]

Completely agreed, but in no way does this refute my point.

In fact, it reinforces the point that I implied regarding human nature, be those humans religious or not.

Originally posted by sputnik



Straw man.

How many people have murdered or crimes committed without doing it for "god". Lets try and keep this within the last 200 years.

Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Mao are modern examples that come to mind. Many of them killed millions to rid the world of religion and other free thought. Not to mention the atrocities in Darfur, Rwanda and other genocides of the past 100 years or so.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010
this topic always just seems to go in circles. This debate has raged for thousands of years, and a couple of points on Beyond are not going to change anything.

What then, is your incentive to continue having it?

Originally posted by liquid1010
With that said, some of the reasoning in this thread is just downright brutal. tkris, you asked me to define some of these overstepped blanket statements, as you mentioned you haven't seen any... it would be my pleasure:

*Every time someone mentions anything you find faulty, you decide to bring up your "Celestial Teapot" theory from Russell. Although his theory does have merits, so does Pascal's Wager.... and I'm not here to debate the merits of that. Merely crying "Celestial Teapot" does not end a debate and prove you right. If that was the case, I would just post "Pascals Wager, and we could banter back and forth for days. - The entire premise defeats itself.

You couldn't be more wrong if your name was W.Wrongy Wrongentein...

The Celetial Teapot goes to the very heart of sputnik's arguments. His position is based on the assumption that unless science can 100% disprove the existence of god, that there is a reasonable likelihood that one exists. The Celestial Teapot demonstrates why this logic is faulty. It is not a be all end all argument on the matter, however, to contend that that stance holds any water one must either demonstrate scientific evidence that god exists, or why his likelihood is more scientifically probable than that of an orbiting teapot.

Surely you see the difference between Pascal's Wager and Russell's teapot in the context of these arguments. If Russell's analogy is true, then sputnik's assumptions are false unless he can produce scientific evidence that differentiates god from the teapot.

You could simply cry "Pascal's Wager" at me, but as his theory does not deal with how we should approach science, but rather how we should conduct ourselves in order to hedge our bets in the event of a paranormal judgement day, it would be entirely futile. If you go back and reread my replies here, I believe you'll be hard pressed to find where I've stated that people should not believe in god. In fact, I've gone so far as to express my reserved respect for the truely faithful among us.
If I'd have been arguing that you shouldn't believe in god because science doesn't support it, then Pascal's Wager would be relevant. However, since the only argument that I've made is that there is no scientific evidence that god exists, my arguments are beyond the scope of Pascal's theory.

Originally posted by liquid1010
tkris - and I quote: "Philosophy may have it's place, but it has no bearing in the scientific community" - We have stated this SO many times, I'm going crazy. Not only are both neccesary, they are entirely DIRECTLY related. Many major breakthroughs in theoretical Physics are based on theories that were first conceptualized in Philosophy. Since you seem to enjoy definitions so much, the definition for philosophy is: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Now try and tell me that doesn't fit into this debate! Also, how do you possibly tell me that doesn't fit into science, especially science related to God and our being?

First, I should point out the context of my quote. I was responding directly to your quote of Chesterton. His argument was (as far as I can tell) that skeptisicm results in hypocracy, and that a skeptic can illicit no change as he can have no real stand on any relevant point.
Because I respect your intellect too much to presume that you simply posted a random quote almost completely out of context, I assumed that you were implying there was some sort of lesson there. Based on that, and given the scope of this discussion, the only conclusion that I could come to was that you were telling us not to believe in science for fear of becoming paradoxial. My contention was that hypothetical musings like the one you posted have no bearing on science, and that we shouldn't shy away from facts, evidence and science simply because a long dead journalist once wrote that, if we didn't, we'd all become hypocritical enigmas.

Admittedly, my phrasing could have been expanded on, but I truely doubt that you failed to understand the context in which that post was written. Instead, I suspect that you saw an oportunity to turn my words, which I certainly can't blame you for, as I've been guilty of the same literary tactic myself.

In addition to that, and in an attempt to allow you to justify that stance, I asked for an example of this type of behavior in myself. Although an attempt was made in this post, it seemed, I have to say, half-hearted at best...

Originally posted by liquid1010

I agree with much of your statement, and it is a good one. With that said, please tell me you see the humour in this? You are arguing that psychology and philosophy are merely a product of our evolution; which is fine. I disagree with you (obviously based on our backgrounds), but I understand your point. With that said, if you are saying that both of the above are a product of our evolution, you must also understand that "science" is just as much a product of our evolution as philisophy and psychology. Both are man's attempt to rationalize, prove, and delineate truth. Obviously I think we can both agree that truth (outside of our experiential truth) is entirely objective, and thus it is our search for that truth that is a function of our evolution. So science would also be put in that same category... period.

Absolutely. Our understanding of science is a product of our minds (like philosophy and psychology), and our minds are a product of evolution. I can assure you that any indication you may have gotten to the contrary was purely due to an assumption on your part.

As I'm certain you know, I can be a little bit long winded, so in the interest of brevity I'll cut it off here with this:

In so far as I can tell, the only pink elephant the two of us still have in the room is that of a genesis point of philosophy and science, and a disagreement as to where the overlap exists.
While we both recognize that this is, in all likelihood, a irreperable difference of opinion, I'll gladly continue as we both (apparently) love to argue (read: hit our heads on brick walls).
With that established, I don't think our argument has any bearing on this thread, as the main topic here seems to revolve around the question of scientific evidence of god's existence.

_______________________________________________

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to address the feelings that some here have that atheists are always trying to push their beliefs on theists, allow me to clarify at least my position:
While I do not agree with your religious beliefs, I do believe that, as long as you're not intruding upon anyone else's rights or freedoms, you're free to have them.
The reserved respect for faith that I've expressed is a nuanced one. I have no respect for blind faith, yet I have a certain respect for the strength of conviction it requires. In the same way, I think vegetarianism (for the reasons most people are vegetarians anyway) is fucking stupid, yet I have a certain respect for the convictions of those who hold their beliefs despite it not being a convenient or easy one.

With that said, the only attacks I've levied (IMS, anyway )against the religious have been those who claim scientific backing, as they have none, or those who hypocratically disrespect the equally blind faith of others who believe in different religion than they do.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by 89coupe
I didn't post this to debate religion, I posted this to debate God vs Science.

How do you young people put it.

Science FTW

Not really related to the thread at all, but more the "style" ... why is it people are writing paragraphs with wealth of knowledge/opinions, and you think its okay to sum things up with 3-4 line posts which are practically irrelevant to your initial argument in the first place?

Its like me saying Black is actually white because a website told me then not supporting MY OWN thoughts and opinions on why i think that way but rather copy and paste my own posts over and over again, but modifying variations of my previous statements.

I dont think ive seen you actually address anybody elses argument at all directly in this "debate" ... im not sayin anything im just saying... if you want to start something, then fight for it

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by BoS_DC2


you're assuming jesus christ was real yet there actually was/is no proof as of yet stating that jesus christ walked the earth.

Same with buddhism and every other religion. Just another cult, I just happen to be apart of one of the cults.

Jesus and Moses have ZERO! externally verified sources outside the bible.


ZERO

So you are correct

Originally posed by SNAATCH Do you really think his whole life was made up? You would have to be stupid to think he didn't walk this earth. Even if you didn't want to believe he was the son of god, you would have to be an idiot not to entertain the idea that he DID live. There is tons of evidence and witnesses. Google it up!

Yes I believe his whole life was made up... I might go so far to say there was some dude named jesus. But I believe that the Monty Python movie The Life of Bryan is probably more historically correct than The Passion of the Christ.

Why would I be an idiot if I believed he didn't exist, because one book said he did? and the guy who first brought it up never met him and was the Roman Emperor Constantine.

I think YOU are the idiot for believing he was real




Read and become informed:

The following seven questions/challenges/musings are intended for fundamentalist Christians. Liberal believers may not recognize themselves in this address.


1. The historical evidence for biblical truth-claims is thin, to be sure. I know of no secular historian who reports on Mary undergoing parthenogenesis, for example. Because this is the case, it seems to me that Christians ought to present some credible secular historical evidence to support their most cherished folklore. It is in this spirit I request the names and relevant works of at least two secular record-keepers—who lived at the same time as Jesus—who specifically mention Jesus as well as at least one of his alleged miracles (for example, bringing dead-long-enough-to-stink Lazarus back to life). Despite persistent requests, I have yet to be presented with any qualifying names.

2. Biblical-literalist Christians generally reject evolutionary theory, in spite of its near-universal acceptance in the scientific community. Evolution teaches us that various orders of animal roamed the planet (and, indeed, went extinct) before other orders of animal even came to be. Creationists argue that all orders of animal were created at about the same time; that is, humans and dinosaurs co-existed. As luck would have it, Young Earth Creationists have a way to falsify Darwinian evolution: the geologic strata. It is in this spirit I request at least two examples of horse fossils found in the Paleozoic strata (among trilobites, crinoids and other such life forms). Alternatively, I, along with the late J.B.S. Haldane, request at least two examples of fossil rabbits found in the Precambrian.

3. According to fundamentalist Christians, the Bible is the word of god. That is, the Bible was either written by the deity or directly inspired by him. Because the Christian god conception incorporates omniscience, a fundamentalist Christian must conclude the Bible boasts omniscient authorship. However, I think the evidence for such a conclusion is lacking. It is in this spirit I request two examples of biblical passages that provide brand new information about the natural order, which previously had been unavailable to humans living during biblical times. I shall relate an example: If the Bible had mentioned the true age and size of our universe, that would qualify as brand new information about the natural order, because first century commoners did not already possess this information. If the Bible lacks brand new information about the natural order, its claims of omniscient authorship are groundless.

4. The Yahweh-worshiping crowd’s delusion truly would have been convincing and persuasive if Yahweh-worship had appeared independently in several different cultures, rather than spreading when one population actively attempts (forcibly or not) to convert another. Consider the following example: The atheist would have had a difficult-to-defend position if, when Christian European explorers arrived in North America, they had discovered a significant percentage of Native Americans was already worshiping Yahweh. The odds of that deity (with his fantastical nature, distinct characteristics and unique demands) coincidentally being invented by two different populations are vanishingly small. If the Clovis people had worshiped Yahweh, it would have been good evidence that the deity revealed himself separately to at least two populations. It is in this spirit I request at least one well-evidenced example of Yahweh-worship being discovered in a geographically isolated population, which never previously had been exposed to a Yahweh-worshiper. [Editor’s Note: Credit goes to frequent commenter Tommy, who planted the seed from which this idea sprang.]

5. Our universe is a breathtakingly vast space. There are about 130 billion galaxies, each containing as many as 400 billion stars. Nobody is certain of how many planets are in our universe. A reasonable (albeit very rough) estimate is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is reached by multiplying 130 billion (galaxies), 400 billion (stars per galaxy) and one—representing planets (because an as-yet-unknown percentage of stars has planets, whilst some lack them). When one examines reality through the lens of cosmology, it seems laughable to think this entire creation is for us. After all, our planet is an infinitesimal speck within our own galaxy—let alone our entire universe! The corners of the cosmos hospitable to humans are exceedingly few. One would think that, if our universe was designed with us in mind, we would be able to explore it a bit, rather than being trapped on a metaphorical sidewalk square within an endless Metropolis. It is in this spirit I ask why, given the enormity of our universe, fundamentalist Christians think god crafted the cosmos for us.

6. Our universe is incredibly old. The best scientific estimates indicate that our universe is 13.7 billion years old. Allow me to quote Victor J. Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado: Referencing the deity, he says, “Instead of six days, he took nine billion years to make Earth, another billion years or so to make life and then another four billion years to make humanity. Humans have walked on Earth for less than one-hundredth of one percent of Earth’s history.” This being the case, why should humans conclude everything was made for us? I shall put a finer point on this: Why would any god, who created a vast cosmos existent for nearly 14 billion years, containing roughly 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets, care about what human primates do whilst naked?

7. Homo sapiens sapiens have existed for tens of thousands of years, or more. The earliest inklings of the Abrahamic monotheism came several millennia ago—probably about four thousand years. Bearing this in mind, why did god wait tens of thousands of years to introduce hominids to the One True Religion? Assuming that the fundamentalist Christian ideology is sound, hominids living 25,000 years ago would have benefited from knowing about Yahweh and his regulations regarding behavior. Lacking god’s revelation, these primitives probably descended into all manner of silly superstition and false belief. If humans truly are god’s children and everything was created for us, why wait until 2000 BCE to roll out the correct religion?

- thanks to the Skeptics society

[mark4091]

Originally posted by SNAATCH


What do you mean there was never a human being to document? So Jesus is imaginary?

Jesus existed, yes.

But the problem is the writings started coming in around 90 AD, which leads to the problem of human nature, even if jesus was perfect, his diciples were not, and since a lot of the writing came from people who had been told by the diciples, words can get kind of scrambled.