Yeah, "God [of theology] is impossible and it is ludicrous to think that God could exist."

That's why I say "I am god as you", as to destroy the silly old lame god definitions. The awe we all share isn't going away, and there is so much we humans will never know, and so the g-o-d word isn't going away, but we can and must continue to redefine g-o-d, as our science knowledge is doing. From Zeus, to god of abraham, to now the best definition yet, the good saving gospel of gawedly "thermodynamics".

  I guess my religion is science and to do good ....

I think every new Christian user should undergo a CARM test.

 

 

Which God would that be? Yahweh, the Canaanite deity you folk like to lie about worshipping?

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Hi, and thank you for sharing your knowledge.

You have ignored the OP and just stated some meaningless irrational slogan.

Please read the OP, and if your capable, please try your best to respond to the OP, like you were a rational human being.

 

Not only is God possible, He is NECESSARY. Read a Systematic Theology volume under "God." something necessary cannot not be. It is impossible to prove no God.

 

To me, the strongest proof is shown in the lives of the saints (thousandsO over 2,000 years. Fulfilled prophecy, the anthropic principle (fine tuning) of the universe, and the life of Christ.

 

With that said, what the hell happened to Kelly's blogs? Where are they?

Glee! I've been waiting to use this for months now.

1. The probability of any entity's existence can be calculated.

2. The probability of any entity's existence is inversely related to its complexity.  I.E., the more complicated something it, the less likely it is to be.

3. God is commonly defined as a being possessing infinite power, knowledge, and/or love.

4. Any entity possessing an infinite attribute is necessarily infinitely complex.  For example, if one tried to count the number of tasks an infinitely powerful God could accomplish, there would always be at least one more task to be ennumerated.

5. Therefore, any entity possessing an infinite attribute is infinitely improbable.

6. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent God is infinitely improbable.

7. Therefore, God's existence is infinitely less probable than God's nonexistence.

This works even if God is not possessed of infinite attributes, but merely very great ones.  If God had the power to create the universe, but not an infinite degree of power, God's existence would still be less likely than that of a Godless universe.

Alternatively, you could argue that humans aren't equipped to calculate the probability of God.  To that, I would say that, being unequipped to calculate the probability of God, you should not critique such a calculation.

 

The anthropic principle and the apparent design of the universe also speak against an all-powerful God.  Design is the process by which a limited being overcomes obstacles to achieve an end.  There could be no obstacles to the power of an omnipotent God (not even himself? I wonder if an all-knowing God is wise enough to stay His all-powerful hand).  The universe would simply work, Goldilocks values for the forces of physics be damned.  We could not reasonably expect to live on a world hospitable to us, as God's will that we should live there would override any consideration of whether there is, say, air. Of course, God could simply will any planet to be habitable for us, but it is not rational to use the habitability of our planet as proof of God's existence. 

Being living things with a number of physical requirements, we should not be suprised to find ourselves living in a universe, in a star system, on a planet, and in a biosphere that satisfies those requirements.  We would not exist if it were otherwise.

Wrong.

Your god is both unexplained and absolutely unexplainable and therefore he is impossible.

Anything that is impossible is absolutely unexplainable and anything that is absolutely unexplainable is impossible. Absolutely unexplainable simply means impossible. Married bachelors are absolutely unexplainable. Regardless of how much research we do, and how much time we spend trying to understand, we are never going to understand married bachelors or square circles or your God. They are simply impossible and we can be absolutely certain that they can not exist.

The reason that it is impossible that my ceramic coffee cup could start thinking and talking to me today is that it is absolutely unexplainable. I am reasonably certain that people will never be able to explain how my ceramic coffee cup could start thinking and talking to me today. If I thought that there reasonably might be an explanation someday, for how such a thing could happen on my desk today, then it would not be impossible.

There are lots of things that we can not yet explain that we will have explanations for someday, and they are not absolutely unexplainable.

Mathematicians know enough about infinity to know that an infinite universe is not mathematically impossible. I do not know if the universe is infinite or not or what that has to do with this thread.

If nothingness is unstable, then it could form something as long as it was balanced. A zero can yeaild a positive one and a negitive one. A gravity well acts as a form of negative energy, and in our Universe the amount of mass and positive energy is about equal to this negative energy, so formation of our Universe out of nothing may be possible. Just because we have never seen something happen does not make it impossible.

We know that quantum energy fluctuations happen all the time, for no reason at all, and sometimes they form pairs of particles. We know that things happen all the time without any cause at all such as the decay of a radioactive particle, and the direction of the resulting radiation, and the emission of a photon from an excited atom and the direction of that photon. The cosmic rays that cause a lot of mutations of sperm and egg cells result from such uncaused events. Not only are uncaused events possible, they are commonplace.

I do not know how the big bang occurred, but I have no reason to think that it is absolutely unexplainable. Your God is absolutely unexplainable, so he can not have caused the big bang, anymore than my plain ceramic coffee cup could have traveled into the past and started the big bang, because that is impossible.

Brian37, I agree, but there is more than one method to eliminating what g-o-d generally means this day. This is a hard task and needs both a scientific logic approach and an emotional one. Using humor and satire are also necessary this sad ignorant embarrassing earth day.  Unfortunately we lack the tools to the immediate destruction of hocus pocus, by any name, such as g-o-d. I see redefining g-o-d as an important useful method of making the god(s) of theology absurd.

As I've said many times, the methods of atheist Alan Watts and many pantheists, and even some new-agers are helpful baby steps to slaying the huge monster dragon of theology religion of a master creator.

Your criticism and advise is always appreciated. I am passionate to our shared goal.

For me to say , "we are god experiencing itself",  is an ancient non superstitious wise intuition of a few, still smothered by innate mass ignorance, control, fear etc.

"I am god as you" is a mockery of the separatist theology master god, and speaks of a humbling reality of equality and connectedness of all non created deterministic existence.  

I should expound upon some things.

You are attributing a quality to NOTHINGNESS?  NOTHINGNESS is NOT a thing.  It's NOTHING.  You can't say use nothing as a subject with predicates.  Maybe you are redefining "nothing", but it, well, has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about.

So if you are trying to tell me that something can come out of nothing, then your claim is absurd and unexplainable.

I'm not much of an expert in quantum mechanics and maybe there is a lot of randomness of events, meaning that the events which occur are often preceded by different events and therefore we cannot attribute any sort of cause because we have not witnessed some sort of consistency.  But the idea that there is no cause is merely speculation.  And at the quantum level, I don't see that it makes much of a difference in terms of our experiences at the macro level.

I think if you want to make a more compelling argument, can you give an example of that sort of randomness at the macro level? And I think what we have to look at is not so much events without causes, since humans could easily do something and say they had no reason for what they did and maybe even make a good case for that.  But let's talk about it in terms of the COMING TO BE of an entity.  Can something which didn't exist prior just come to be?  Can something just appear out of thin air?  Have you ever experienced something that just brought itself into existence?  That's something that is not explainable or intelligible.  I don't even see it as a natural scientific impossibility, like your ceramic cup speaking to you.  It comes across to me as a logical impossibility.  To bring yourself into existence, you would have to exist prior in some form.   And no, this does not apply to God because theoretically, God is infinite and never BEGAN to exist.

 

We are talking about events that are uncaused.  In other words, we are talking about events which are not necessitated by any prior event in time, independent of our ability to predict it.  I don't know much about physics and really have no idea what you are talking about.  Are you saying that physicists have determined that the events you described have no cause and substantiated that in some sort of law or doctrine?

I'm not trying to be a jerk.  Maybe if you can educate me in physics a little more, I may change my mind.

How can an object which is not pre-existing bring itself into existence?  Give me an example of that happening and speak it in a way that you would speak it to someone who only has a cursory knowledge of physics, such as me.  Just take this little test and maybe you can convert me:

(1) Give an example of ONE kind of entity which does not pre-exist and then brings itself into existence.  The example has to consist of something which relies on no external factors at all, otherwise it hasn't really brought itself into existence.

(2) What is the nature of this entity?  Can you describe it?  What is its purpose in the order?  What does it do?

Not true.

You cannot attribute any physical qualities to God, whether it's size, extension, or energy of any kind.

Ok. Then how can you possibly know anything about this "God" of which you speak? If it lacks any conceivable attributes that we usually use to describe things that exist in reality, then what is it? I am interested in the answer to these questions, especially since you wrote this in an earlier post:

The idea of it, or the supposed real thing the idea corresponds to? Infinite in what sense? Being in what sense? Unless you can describe it, how is that utterly vague statement any better than "The abstraction of Flabrgl is that of a humbly implicit infinite vagueness."?

Radioactive decay happens because the combination of particles making up certain atomic nucleii makes them only marginally stable. They only persist at all because it requires a small but finite additional nudge of energy to initiate the decay process. There appears to be no actual separate entitity supplying this nudge. What we observe actually seems to best fit the idea of Quantum Uncertainty, where such barriers do not absolutely block the event from happening, they just define the probability that it could actually overcome that barrier within any given time interval. So the higher the amount of extra energy required, the longer we will have to wait, on average, for a particular atom to decay.

Any event is going to have this element of fuzziness, imprecision, uncertainty about its exact timing, depending how sensitive it is to slight variations in magnitude of the conditions which trigger it. In the vast majority of macro events, at least one of the input variables is changing at a rate that means that it passes thru the uncertainty range in an extremely short time, so this fuzziness is undetectable.

In the case of 'empty' space, even the value of zero energy has a level of uncertainty, of probability about it, so there is a finite probabilty of the occurrence of an event such as the appearance of a pair of virtual particles.

So yes, Quantum Theory does seem to imply uncaused events, at least in terms of the exact timing. It really is an additional factor which needs to be taken into account by anyone arguing about 'cause' and 'effect'.

Of course the idea an object 'bringing itself into existence' is utter nonsense in every way.

This ground level of randomness/uncertainty is the additional reality which QM seems to point to. It explains how an event can be initiated at random/arbitrary time, within an indefintely long period, without requiring the intervention of the will of a conscious being, which is an argument I have seen for the necessity of a God.

And non-physical properties are, of necessity, purely speculative, ie made up, so we can know NOTHING about such PURELY hypothetical entities.

And as you see, such entities are not necessary in any way to provide a framework for investigating and understanding our perceived environment, rather they just add another intrinsically inexplicable confusing factor into the picture.

The ghost god of theology is obviously, sadly understandable, emotional fantasy bull shit about "NOTHING". Religious people break my heart ....

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820

  Notice how the word "atheist" was used differently by Jefferson. Here's another,

I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshiped a false god, he did. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

  That is why I prefer to simply say, I AM GOD, just as you of course. Ignorant blind fools look for god over yonder of their imagination of separatism, needing an idol due to awe, fear, and sheep mentality of surrender.

Sheezzz you religious folks are hypnotized fans of make believe. I wish entertaining such fantasy religious ideas wasn't hurtful and dangerous, but it is indeed poison, mind terrorism, and reality pollution. 

 

Not sure it you got what I was trying to say - there appears to be no 'ultimate cause' determining that the radioactive decay event occur at that particular time.

That is very much a personal reaction. It may just reflect the fact that I have been involved in understanding and designing complex physical and electronic mechanisms, so I have gained a 'feel' for how relatively simple physical entities can give rise to unexpected behaviour, even surprising the designer.

Apart from the FACT that a conscious designer cannot be the ultimate explanation for things like our own consciousness, since  that idea would require a higher level designer to design the first designer, etc.

We KNOW that complexity can arise from simpler elements, and that the Darwinian algorithm DOES provide a more than plausible way for life to evolve - we have both computer simulations and actual experiments which show how the emergence of new characteristics can happen - it does not require 'faith' to accept this as a reasonable explanation.

So the idea that higher level organization and behaviour can emerge from simpler entities interacting in complex ways, so that the 'ultimate cause' need be no more than a Planck-scale twitch, does NOT violate any established physical principles, and so completely avoids the diverging infinite regress problem inherent in any 'designer' hypothesis. That many people find it counter-intuitive is not a real argument - quantum theory and relativity are highly counter-intuitive but very well supported by the evidence - they WORK.

There is arguably still an infinite regress in my explanation, but as long as each step back along the sequence takes us, on average, to a lesser cause, ie it is convergent, the ultimate chain does not lead to anything infinite, and does not even have to be infinite in time or space.

The sum of an infinte series, where each term is smaller than the one before by a constant factor, is finite.

That respond only makes sense in reference to thought processes, but even there we actually have a lot of evidence as to what is the 'effect', so it is absolutely not 'just speculation'.

{BTW, note I took the 'liberty' of quoting the statement of yours that I was responding to, unlike the way you included a bit of mine from a previous post which was not directly relevant to my response. }

 

Ok, you win the debate.

 

 You atheists are living a total lie. You are fighting against something you KNOW is true. People don't create websites, forums and dedicate their whole lives to an agenda attacking something they know is not true. How many websites and forums are there attacking the existence of the tooth fairy? The fact is that you are fighting against something you know is real --hence your anger. The anger is against a real thing -- a person (God) according to Fr. Seraphim Rose. He used to be an atheist, and tested with a genius level IQ while still in High School. He later joined the beatnick generation, got into Buddhism, Taoism (got his M.A. in Chinese under America's tops scholar) and later an Orthodox Christian, priest and monk  -- died in 1982.

If I said I believed in the tooth fairy, you would just laugh at me and move on. You wouldn't devote so much time and energy in websites, videos, books, blogs. forums, etc trying to disprove to me the tooth fairy doesn't exist. There's no reason to. Because we all know it's silly. But because you know God exists, (every man knows this: see Rom.1, Rom. 2; John 1:3) and that there are very powerful arguments in favor of His existence, you are commited to your agenda. Atheists know what God expects of them -- a moral life. That's why they're so pissed. And they don't like the idea that there is something or someone more powerful and wiseer then they.

I belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, also known as Eastern Orthodoxy. We have 2,000 years of vindication. The lives of our many thousands of saints (which you know nothing of) vindicate the truths of Christianity and prove to the world that Christianity WORKS. History proves it. We have 2,000 years of vindication.

The skeptic might have had a case against us had Christianity been created a decade ago. But unfortunately for them, we have 2,000 years of vindication.

The lives of our many thousands of saints from the middle east, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Georgia, etc, proves that Christ sent the Holy Spirit into His Church for the sanctification of souls. The holiness of our saints proves it. Christianity turns sinners into saints. The message works! History proves it. But the Devil makes people only see and focus on the negatives (child abuses in the Catholic Church, Inquisition).

Here is a video of some icons of our saints

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8D2KEY0okY

WHY WON'T GOD HEAL AMPUTEES?

The question as to why God won't heal amputess, is silly.

First, how do you know He hasn't? Have you interviewed everysingle person who ever lived?

Second, it's a straw man argument (fallacy). God never said He would heal amputees.

Third, one Orthodox bishop once told me that the world does not have the same level of spiritual energy that it had at the time of Christ and the first few centuries. The world and the Church itself is too sinful for this kind of grace (miracle). We are approaching the great apostasy (loss of faith) that was prophesied to come. Mankind is just too sinful. The time of the great saints is over. Those were the kind of people who performed great miracles. However, there are still many miracles in the world. God has not left His Church.

Fourth, SAINT JOHN OF DAMASCUS (8th century) had his hand amputated by heretics, and he was healed by the Holy Virgin Mary over night.  Saint John was a defender of the faith (worthy of such a miracle) and a saint. He prayed before an icon of Mary in the night. When he awoke his hand was restored.

I heard one atheist say Christianity poisons everything.

This is a ludicrous statement.

First, again, we have 2,000 years of vindication in the lives of our many thousands of saints and millions of martyrs. History proves the Christian program works -- the saints prove it.

The critics spend their whole lives attacking the Bible. But in the mean time the Orthodox Church has produced thousands of saints. The critic needs to get off his ivory tower and come back down to earth to see what's happening.

Second, over 80% of all American hospitals, orphanges, universities, and all charity organizations, were founded by Christians. Tell them Christianity poisons everything when your lying helpless in one of their hospital beds.

BACKSLIDING CHRISTIANS

Lastly, those Evangelical or Protestant "Christians" who leave their faith (I don't know of any Orthodox Christian who ever has left the faith), and become atheists, pagans or witches, usually become very bitter and angry people.

The apostasy (loff of faith) is predicted to occur just before the coming of the Antichrist. Saint Paul talks about this.

Christ said that those who fall away so easily because they can't deal with tests and trials, are like bad ground where seeds fall but cannot grow. -Luke 8

In speaking about backslider and apostates, the Bible says "THE DOG HAS TURNED TO ITS OWN VOMIT AGAIN."

LASTLY

God allows death and children to die first of all because since He gives life, He has every right to take it. Life is a prividelge, not a right. He never had to give anyone life in the first place. How do you know He's not taking them to a better place?

Second, you are opperating from the position of insufficient knowledge. You just don't have enough information. A brain that is still evolving (according to evolution), cannot claim absolute and objective knowledge about anything. These are properties of a perfect brain only. Perhaps God takes some children early in their lives because He is protecting them from sins He foresaw they would commit in adulthood. He's actually protecting them by taking them early. Humans just don't have enough information. God has ALL wisdom. He does everything perfectly.

 

The whole history of divine revelation as seen with the Hebrew people, the prophets, the Christian saints, etc is strong evidence. God doesn't give 100% proof because then there would be no need for faith. Scripture says without faith it is impossible to please Him. The evidence in history, nature, the life of Christ, and what we know in the inner recesses of our hearts, is good enough. All the excuses that there wasn't enough evidence, will not hold-up on judgement day. God can see through all the crap, lies and excuses.

 

When you die and descend into Hell, you will change your tune real fast. I gurantee it.

Hi Greek Orthodoxy. Welcome to RRS!

I hope you can support this claim with logic and evidence.

Yes, but attacking the existence of the tooth fairy is ludicrous because there is no valid reason to. No sane adult believes in the tooth fairy to begin with. Atheists obviously frequently protest against religion because people do believe in such things; not only that, but most religions endlessly proselytize non-theist. As for the claim itself, Creationists attack evolution all the time, and they believe evolution is false so clearly you are mistaken. 

You have no evidence for this assertion. You are simply repeating yourself, and stating something repeatedly does not make it true. 

I could (hypothetically) argue that you know God doesn't exist -- hence your anger. But, this a completely unsubstantiated claim.  

You are appealing to authority. The fact that Seraphim Rose was intelligent doesn't objectively add anything to the argument. For all I care, he could possess the highest IQ in the world, but he would still need to prove to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is a God. By the way, I also have an extremely high IQ, so I'm not impressed at all.

Of course. So why should I behave any differently when you say you believe in talking donkeys?

This is just wrong. I know Islam is silly, but I still try to disprove it when it's convenient. Although it's level of absurdity is certainly a factor, what really matters is whether people follow the beliefs in question and how literally they follow it.

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Romans 1:18-20

"We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." 1 John 1:3

But, you haven't shown any powerful arguments in favor of the existence of Jehovah.

Furthermore, these chapters and verses you've cited are simply extensions of the assertion that you're making, not proof of their validity. The fact that you and the Bible agree does not make either source more reliable unless you have proven that the Bible is true.  

But, this is another fallacy. You claim that atheists are angry because God wants them to be moral. However, then, one of your unstated assumptions is that atheists are immoral. You haven't proven this either. 

- But, you haven't shown how history proves your religion in any way. You've merely stated it. What makes Christianity any more valid than Islam?

- Stating that we know nothing about your saints is a huge assumption since we have ex-Christians on this site.

- Also, the age of your church isn't evidence for the veracity of its beliefs.  

Are you serious? Science is has progressed so fast and far in the 20th century that nearly all religions are in danger of being wiped out. The theory of evolution, the unifying theory of biology, absolutely disproves every literal interpretation of every creation myth in the history of humanity. And again, humans believed that the universe revolved around the Earth for thousands of years, so the longevity of a belief is simply irrelevant. You need to show how your church is "vindicated" instead of just stating it.

Huh? How do you know that the saints proved Christianity? How do you know the saints are holy? How do you know Christianity turns sinners into saints? How do you know it works? How do you know history proves it? How do you know the involved? How do you know the Devil exists?

It's just a bunch of drawings. Also, that hymn is not beautiful; this is purely subjective, but I think that hymn is annoying as hell.

Huh? Haven't you ever seen an amputee before? Why won't God heal them. edit: Why do I need to interview every person that ever lived to know that amputees exist?

Of course he didn't, but I know the video you're referring to, and you're missing the point. God is omnibenevolent, which means that he is infinitely good. Furthermore, amputees are suffering due to the lack of a limb(s). If God is ominibenevolent, why won't he relieve amputees of their suffering?

But, how do you know these things? You're just making more assertions. 

What? How do you know that this happened?

I would disagree with the statement that Christianity poisons everything. Of course, it's a hopelessly vague statement anyways.

You already stated this earlier. How does Christianity vindicated? How does history prove it works? How do the saints prove it?

How do you know this? 

I could cite the Crusades, scams, delusion, etc. but, eh, I don't really want to debate about whether Christianity is good, but whether it is true. These are two different arenas. 

Okay, just keep hurling more insults.

But, you're making the assumption that the premises of your argument are correct again. 

Aside from the fact that you're committing several more logical fallacies, you sure have a nice rationalization for the omnibenevolent dictator of the universe repeatedly committing genocide and infanticide.  

And I don't, which is why I maintain a weak agnosticism on pretty much everything. But, yet, you are claiming that you have knowledge of veracity of your faith. How does this work?

What the fuck?! I can't even imagine the level of fundie think that you must have utilized to pull this one out of your ass. Well then, why doesn't God just kill everyone before the age of three so that they all go to heaven? Wouldn't that be swell? 

*sigh*

What history?

Well, that's convenient. Why should I have faith in him instead of Allah?

What evidence in history and nature? The birth, life, death, and resurrection Jesus is based on older pagan religions, and theists have failed to even prove that a person named Jesus existed at the time. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/silence_screams_no_contemporary_historical_accounts_quotjesus

There's virtually zero evidence. I could form a better argument for FSM. Hell, the increase in global temperature has been shown to be related to the decrease in the number of pirates.

Oooooohhh, scare tactics. How frightening! (shiver) (shudder)

 

I hope you're not holding your breath for that.

 

Yet again the argument from fear. I do wish they'd read the forums for a while before spouting off - this shit gets so repetitive.

I can't remember ever seeing tooth-fairy belief leading to anyone trying to restrict other peoples' rights through the law (see prop 18, the fucktard pro-life movement, censorship, etc. ), discrimination (against women, non-believers and gays), trying to introduce bullshit into science classes (creationism) but religion certainly does this all the time.

Fr. Seraphim Rose was an ignorant superstitious crackpot who just made up bullshit and lied that it was true - even though he had no evidence that it was true. He was not an intellectual – he was just a prejudiced bigot. Fr. Rose demonstrated an arrogance that exceeded megalomania because he believed that he could know that something was true, when there was no reasonable evidence that it was true. There are lots of very intelligent people that live in insane asylums and others who are just as insane, like Fr. Rose, who spread their evil delusions amongst the gullible.

We secularists are here supporting the struggle against evil. Lies are evil because life depends on truth so lies are anti-life. Claiming that something is true without reasonable evidence that its true, is lying. It is the evil lies that make us angry and we should be justifiably angry about your evil lies. Religion is evil because it is lies, and religious people who are arguing for religion are just spreading evil lies.

Irrational lies such as communism, totalitarianism and religion are especially evil because history has shown that these lies have caused otherwise good people to torture and murder tens of millions of people, and religious people who are arguing for religion are just spreading these kinds of evil irrational lies.

Your belief in the tooth fairy is different than your belief in God, because belief in the tooth fairy is not responsible for otherwise good people torturing and murdering tens of millions of people. Your belief in the tooth fairy is not responsible for your support for making the world an authoritarian concentration camp – hell on earth.

Your bible is a book of Christian fiction and fantasy. The bible is not a source of knowledge – it’s just trashy pulp fiction. Jesus never existed, Paul never existed, the apostles never existed – they are all just fictional characters in fictional stories.

There is no reasonable evidence that Christianity even existed before the fourth century. The early history of your Greek Orthodox church is a fraud.

We all know that we do not believe that god exists, so all us atheists are absolutely sure that Paul and Fr. Rose and you are all demented liars. You have no evidence at all for your claim that we believe in God and therefore it is objectively demonstrated that you’re a liar, and everyone can know that Paul and Fr. Rose and you are all demented liars. Paul says that everyone believes in God because Paul is a demented liar. His epistles are full of claims without evidence – he constantly lies. Paul probably had some kind of brain disease that caused him to have delusional visions. His revelation is not knowledge, but just the delusions of a diseased mind.

There are no arguments at all that God exists except those based on logical fallacies, such as, equivocation, circular reasoning, special pleading, argument from ignorance or appeal to consequences. All the effort expended inventing and supporting arguments for God based on logical fallacies are good evidence that there is no god. Your so called “powerful arguments” are just delusions like your delusional belief in the Greek Orthodox religion and your delusional belief in non-existent entities such as Jesus, the apostles, Yahweh, Satan, early Christens.

God is impossible. Why don't you prove that your god is at least possible. Instead of giving us hokey flawed arguments of his existance, why don't you show us the evidence that it is at least possible for God to exist, or that there is a god, or that early Greek orthodox history is real, or that Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Paul or the apostles ever existed, or that the gospels are not fiction, or that the Christianity of your creed existed before the fourth century?

After all, only an insane crackpot would believe fantastic stories without reasonable evidence, right?

I believe he was trying to say that the Greek Orthodox church (the only one GreekOrthodoxy acknowledges as Christianity) didn't exist until the 4th century.

As for the religion that was built around the cobbling together of Canaanite mythology, Gnostic thought and hero myths of various civilizations, yeah, that was around earlier.

Religion (B.S.) and Gawed (reality),  is an oxymoron, an obvious contradictory paradox. Reading the ancient words of the god of abe creators is like listening to a 5 yr old muse on QM, to then be retold by the other kids.   

The bibles offer some information bits of their ancient civilization, and some insight as to ancient intuitive "gnosis" wisdom of oneness (thermodynamics) , and lots of lessons of our human ancestors and present ignorance.  

... blah, blah ... hey, let's party ... enough of that old shit .... yeah, fantasy religion just doesn't much want to go away ... okay, back to the battle of healing the sick ... but let's flaunt the party of we the free,  as everyone is invited out of their idol worship darkness  ....  

... and now a tedious sermon alerting to the danger of schizoidism (confusion) ... OUCH.

KING CRIMSON - 21st CENTURY SCHIZOID MAN  - 5 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZMjniYd4E8&feature=related

   ... and now one from my late freedom teacher mom ... such a cool little song.

Andy Williams - Born Free  - 2 min  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHaQ3C3xQo
 

 

     

No, I am saying that there is not reasonable evidence that Christianity existed as a religion before around 325 CE, and we should presume that it did not exist before 325 CE until there is good evidence to believe that it did exist before 325 CE.

Of course, Christianity might have started anywhere from 200 BC to 325 CE, and I really do not care when it started because I think Mark was most likely written as Jewish fiction, so Christianity is based on fiction whether Mark was originally written in 200 BC, 30 CE, or 300 CE or whenever the religion started.

However, all the evidence that Christianity existed as a religion before 325 CE is just so flimsy that it is not sufficient to convince a reasonable person, who is not biased about the question, that it is an established fact, that Christianity existed before 325 CE.

The art and scrap of text from Dura-Europos dated 257 are useless to prove that Christianity existed because the art could be pagan and the fragment might not refer to Jesus of Nazareth. We have no idea whther it was a house church or a magic shop. There is a pool which is common in pagan cortyards. There is a depiction of three women and a box, a depiction of the good shepard, which was a well known pagan motief, and a depiction of someone wading in water near a boat. The wading in water might be a depiction of the walking-on-water magic trick, but it may not be Jesus of Nazareth, because walking on water was probably a common magic trick of gods and famous gurus at that time. The text of the fragment of paper is not from any known Christian or Jewish writing, and it does not mention Jesus, but metntions someone getting cruxified, and it mentions Joseph of Arimathea, and it has not been carbon dated.

The gospel of Judas is carbon dated to 290, but there is no evidence that anyone believed the gospel of Judas was true except documents that could have been written in the 4th century.

The existence of the text of a story and art relating to that story is not evidence that anyone believed the story. I have lots of texts and art in my house related to stories that I believe are fictional. For example,  I may have several books and a poster of Ariel The Little Mermaid. We require evidence that someone actually worshiped Jesus of Nazareth before the 4th century to believe Christianity existed before the 4th century e.g. where are the Churces supposedly founded by paul?

The graffiti from Rome of someone with a jackal or donkey head with a Tee across it and a caption saying "Alexamenos worships his god" may be 4th century, and we can not tell if its Anubis, or Jesus, or the donkey headed statue that Jews supposedly worshiped in their temple, or whatever. The Tee may just be a tee and not a cross, because the person is not a stick figure, but the tee is just a stick figure.

All the other documents, that are supposedly from before the 4th century, could easily have been created in the 4th century because they have not been carbon dated to before the 4th century. The fact that handwriting stryle of some document, that could be a forgery, is similar to the handwriting style of another document that may or may not be from 150 CE is just not good evidence of anything. We know that religions write fictional documents and forge documents at prodigious rates. All religious scripture is fiction or forgery or propaganda and it can not be relied upon as a source of any information.

Also, many of these supposedly pre-forth-century documents seem to be by individual cranks that do not indicate that Christianity was a viable religion. The existence of a lone crank or even a group of cranks worshiping Mithra or Serapes and calling him Jesus Christ is not evidence of a continuing religion of worshipers of the Jesus of Nazareth of the gospels.

Dozens of times in my adult life, Bible archaeologists (fraudulent quacks and insane crackpots) have announced proof of Noah's Ark or the Exodus or Solomon’s mines or Solomon’s temple or a first century church and every time it was bullshit.

 

 

 

This is one of the most colossally absurd things I've ever heard.  You are either severely lacking in thought power or a lunatic.  Either way I have no intention of wasting my time with the massive crushing weight of evidence that makes your view idiotic.  Five to ten minutes of research on the web should have long ago disabused you of such nonsense. What you've said is the equivalent of  http://www.timecube.com/ or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBsxqQIu_5s

I don't attempt rational discussion with the crazy homeless guy on the corner and I won't with someone as clearly out of touch with simple fact as you. Or put more bluntly, back away from the crazy person and don't make eye contact.