If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm confused by this. What makes you pretty certain of that? There are no first-hand accounts written of Jesus. The name Jesus is inconsistent with his supposed heritage. There are no records of anyone like him in a place and time when extensive records were kept. All accounts of Jesus arose almost a hundred years after he supposedly lived. It's pretty likely that someone (maybe Paul) invented Jesus and start presenting the stories as reality.

You either have faith or you don't. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of Jesus. (Or Abraham, or Moses, or the Exodus, or Muhammad, if you want to get into that.)

True.

personally I could care less...but it stands to reason there was probably someone at the core of the legend...there generally is.

oral tradition took care of the rest.

semantics, has put the wrong side of the fence, lol. I believe in "Jesus" as much as I do in St. George's dragon, which was probably originally some exotic tradesman's pet Gila. while a Gila (or Komodo -whatever) more than likely existed -probably making old George piss his drawers -legend made it a dragon.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

True.

personally I could care less...but it stands to reason there was probably someone at the core of the legend...there generally is.

oral tradition took care of the rest.

semantics, has put the wrong side of the fence, lol. I believe in "Jesus" as much as I do in St. George's dragon, which was probably originally some exotic tradesman's pet Gila. while a Gila (or Komodo -whatever) more than likely existed -probably making old George piss his drawers -legend made it a dragon.

Your logic completely escapes me. Are you saying that you believe there must be some real historical figure on whom legends are built? So you believe in Adam, the Buddha, Noah, Jonah, Gilgamesh, Marduk, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Paul Bunyan and Tinkerbell?

Do you realize that there is actual evidence of the existence of Nikolaos of Myra? That's right, Santa Claus is more real than Jesus or Muhammad. St. Nick was a short man with a broken nose and his remains are buried at Buri, Italy. This minor bishop lived less than 250 years after Jesus and 300 years before Muhammad, yet somehow we know where he lived, where he died, where he was buried, how his tomb was moved and where he is now. Yet, somehow, the records, remains and relics of the founders of Christianity and Islam were somehow lost or misplaced or destroyed or something and no one thought to write anything about them down until a hundred years after they lived.

They could have at least made up good stories about what happened to the physical evidence. Satan or Caesar or something. Lazy.

[Azazel]

There is no doubt over the existance of Muhammad his life is well documented.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your logic completely escapes me. Are you saying that you believe there must be some real historical figure on whom legends are built?

We're on the same side I think. Our only difference of opinion here is that I think a legend was built around someone...and you don't. Both amount to the same thing, ultimately.

Siddhartha Gautama, for example. He may or may not have existed, but the likelihood is high that he did, yes? What has been attributed to him is another question.

Originally Posted by Alawen Everywhere [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They could have at least made up good stories about what happened to the physical evidence. Satan or Caesar or something. Lazy.

Full agreement, here.


<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IBxfGdRZvaI" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Azazel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is no doubt over the existance of Muhammad his life is well documented.

You can state something as a fact, but that doesn't make it true. The biographies of Muhammad came very late and the Uthman Qur'an follows his supposed death by many decades. So what do you have? Later recordings of oral tradition (again)? There's that story about the treaty or whatever with the monastery at... drawing a blank, need Google... ah, here it is. The Achtiname, his supposed agreement with the monks of St. Catherine's. The only problem is that the original document was somehow lost (oh no not again!) and all that's left is a copy from the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Anonymous scribes of the Church of the East wrote the Chronicle of Seert which supposedly references Muhammad but uh-oh it wasn't written until the ninth century.

I'd say there's quite a lot of doubt about the existence of Muhammad, but maybe we have different definitions of that word. If you mean there are a lot of copies of the Qur'an, I'll have to yield the point, if you will grant me that the existence of lots of Marvel comics means that Spiderman is a real guy, too.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We're on the same side I think. Our only difference of opinion here is that I think a legend was built around someone...and you don't. Both amount to the same thing, ultimately.

Siddhartha Gautama, for example. He may or may not have existed, but the likelihood is high that he did, yes? What has been attributed to him is another question.

I think we are interpreting most of the concrete evidence the same way, but coming to different conclusions. I d'know about the Buddha. I see no real reason to believe he existed, either. The Buddhist thing is nice, though. Very respectful, very gentle. I sure like meat, though.

[Theldios]

Originally Posted by quellren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And thats the game.... thanks for coming.
As soon as someone plays the 'God doesn't have to play by the rules' card, there's no going back.
All logic and legitimacy to the discussion just went out the window.

sigh.

Actully even Big Bang theorists say Time was different in the begining
So your point is?
Oh wait you haveno point except conjecture and half truths
Game over goodbye.

[Gorgetrapper]

Originally Posted by Theldios [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Actully even Big Bang theorists say Time was different in the begining
So your point is?
Oh wait you haveno point except conjecture and half truths
Game over goodbye.

The only consistent thing in this world IS time. Whether people conceived it differently back then or not, it still moved at the same rate. So by saying the world is only "6000 years old" is a way they THINK. When you have something like carbon dating going on, where they say "oh these must have come from the age of the dinosaurs a million years ago" that was probably translated on how we conceive time as it stands in our world.

I mean fuck, there was this huge argument not even 2 months ago on one of my friends' facebook where this girl actually believed that the only reason there is disease and war in this world, is because there was separation of church and state and god was punishing us for that.

As someone said, it's all about faith, not matter how outlandish and crazy it may seem to everyone else.

[Chanus]

A rudimentary understanding of general relativity will reveal to you that time is anything but constant.

[Harrison]

I just explained that to him personally like 30 seconds ago lol