daniel, you can't disprove the existence of Jesus and I doubt you even read my link. Even the Moslems believe that Jesus existed and they have no selfish motives to do so. There is also real archaelogical proof of records kept by the Romans and by the Jews of that time. And yes, trying to disprove a religious believe is totally pointless. You will realize that sooner or later.
oh yeah, GREAT bamboozles... specially the one about jesus never existing.. i mean, geez that one's bamboozled man for centruries right? BAAAARP. wrongo other way around isn't it. oh, and i'll freely admit, i have an intense grudge against religion. just like i have an intense grudge against communism, and other "pet hates" that have brought misery to humanity.
dude i have spent hour upon hour in the most intense debates i've ever been part of discussing this jesus crap. (you might wanna come to infidels.org, where the big boys play, not this petty ET crap) i think i have a pretty good idea of what i'm talking about, and of the "evidence" the christian brings to the table. no, disproving religion is not pointless, it serves a very worthwhile purpose. actual disproof of religion, especially christianity is quite simple. convincing a stubborn dead head christian of the obvious irrationality of his faith is where futility often sets in.
I am not trying to convert you. My point is that there is evidence that Jesus existed as a human being, if you choose to ignore it, its ok. Lets just say for the sake of argument that you could prove that jesus didn't exist, do you really think that would matter? Of course not. Most people don't believe the bible literally, and those that do wouldn't believe you anyway. Its about faith, not logic or facts. You are trying to use logic and facts to combat faith. One of the first things that commies do when they takeover is to get rid of the priests. Religion competes with the "logical" power of the state. Atheism has been used as a tool of slavery just like religion has. If you are a free market/bill of rights kind of guy, then you have read the constitution. In the constitution there is talk of inalienable rights. The people that wrote the constitution were agnostics, deists, and some christians. The whole concept of inalienable rights is a spiritual concept. You cannot believe that humans are merely animals, and at the same time believe in absolute rights that are seperate from government. Religion can be used to enslave people, or it can be used to set you free. Religion in itself is not evil, it is how some power hungry people use it that is evil.
Inalienable rights cannot be a spiritual concept. That is a contradiction. Inalienable rights must be a hard practical, self evident definition and least of all to do with spiritual matters. Religion is "evil" when it is institutionalized. It invades and replaces inalienable rights. When it is put forward as a truth to young children at school with its intolerant messages, it infringes inalienable rights. When it is committed and incorporated into the structure of society, so that you start out with a slanted view from the get go, it breaches inalienable rights. Anything that subverts the ability to learn and develop freely without fear or retribution is a dilution of inalienable rights. The freedom to believe in a religion is an inalienable right. The freedom to impel it as a truth upon others is a flagrant disregard of inalienable rights.
does not the same logic apply to the teaching of evolution as fact ?? i am not making any statements, just asking a question. best, surf
marketsurfer Evolution conforms with the principles and methods derived from scientific discipline. Science is not a belief in itself, though religious supporters always like to portray it as such. Science includes the reality that enables us to communicate in this way and produces theories about what we may learn next,. It does not require faith. It requires truth to be proven and in this context is not a faith. In fact quite the opposite. This has been well covered in similar god threads. To teach something as true, which can in fact only ever be a faith (ie religion), is immoral.
Babak, belief net ........ for christ sakes Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, told a news conference that the identification is probable but he has ``a bit of doubt.' In the work I do we're rarely absolutely certain about anything,'' he said. LOL "A bit of doubt" I wonder if the bloke who found Hitler's diaries had a bit of doubt. These jokers seem to regularly find some artefact that fails scrutiny. Turin Shroud ring a bell? I notice a nice book or two for sale there for the true believer. I thought you guys were being a little bit serious