so the jury is still out until i see the "finds" you refer to. you also have to keep in mind that there was probably more than one person called jesus at that time.
but no contemporary writing/proof of existence at the time to jesus's supposed existence. i would imagine if this mythical person of magic existed and did the things he was supposed to have done, it would have been recorded all over the place. i'm sure they had their own version of the tabloid in those days as it is all it is worthy of.
no-one should teach a child "faith", they should be taught its belief without evidence and its a crock of shit until its proved. believing in the holy scriptures is exploitation of your ignorance.
nope, those political crimes where not in the name of atheism or because of atheism. i know its hard for you to understand the difference. Stalin was a product of Catholic parents and attended a seminary (so he had good training at how to be nasty), Mao was a fan of Stalin(Catholic) and Hitler (Catholic) and their policies but it was not in the name of atheism.
an "angry" thunder storm? the sun reappearing after an eclipse? a coincidence of calling for something and it happening? just a few things that might impress/fool a caveman
"I'm not religious myself, I just find your argument poor and out of touch with how language is used." - does that mean you believe on God? Just because you're not religious doesn't mean you don't believe in a "god":o)
so as the romans were in Palestine at the "assumed" jesus, they must have used the Julian calendar as well so that makes his mythical birth the same day as Newtons
"It just happens to be a day that mopst western Christians celebrate His birth." - thats a recently modern spin because the facts have unraveled the bollox that's been spouted for nigh on 2000 years
good grief, one minute Newton is a Catholic and the next he's Church of England..... Anyway it was safer to be a believer in that time so you didn;t get burnt at the stake or drowned as a witch.
You can't disprove that something doesn;t exist. Even the few scientists that are still believers haven't provided proof that a god exists. its a very naive childish attempt at an argument along these lines.
" Christmas is the CELEBRATION of the birth of Jesus and NOT the actual birth of Jesus" - this spinning of the date's purpose is getting quite popular, this usuallky happens when the "fact" as previously propagated has lost its factual content
" three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic." - from the said article, says it all really and they were written years after the event so its not conclusive at all so in my book, it hasn't been proved he existed. you'd think the historians/diary writers/journalists of the day would have written about the "miracles" immediately. Its ll too tenuious
"On this day long ago, a child was born " - has this been patented? these sort of topical reference jokes are used all year round so didn't "do a dick thing"
Slashdot Mirror
i can't find any links to support "recent archeological finds found some additional Roman correspondence that mentions him and his followers" but i found these http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E... and one self-serving http://www.ucg.org/science/sur...
so the jury is still out until i see the "finds" you refer to. you also have to keep in mind that there was probably more than one person called jesus at that time.
but no contemporary writing/proof of existence at the time to jesus's supposed existence. i would imagine if this mythical person of magic existed and did the things he was supposed to have done, it would have been recorded all over the place. i'm sure they had their own version of the tabloid in those days as it is all it is worthy of.
i still want to know whats holding it all up, infinity blows my mind.
no-one should teach a child "faith", they should be taught its belief without evidence and its a crock of shit until its proved. believing in the holy scriptures is exploitation of your ignorance.
there should be a full stop after "for" and the rest dis-guarded.
i'd drop "soul" from that list, its a "creation of man's delusional mind"
No, its just lucky that the elements happened to exist and then logical because if 2 things blend they create something new
nope, those political crimes where not in the name of atheism or because of atheism. i know its hard for you to understand the difference. Stalin was a product of Catholic parents and attended a seminary (so he had good training at how to be nasty), Mao was a fan of Stalin(Catholic) and Hitler (Catholic) and their policies but it was not in the name of atheism.
an "angry" thunder storm? the sun reappearing after an eclipse? a coincidence of calling for something and it happening? just a few things that might impress/fool a caveman
"I'm not religious myself, I just find your argument poor and out of touch with how language is used." - does that mean you believe on God? Just because you're not religious doesn't mean you don't believe in a "god" :o)
her ass competes with a hippo's ass
"Cristianity is a religion of loving" - tell that to all those killed in the bible via various methods like stoning....
so as the romans were in Palestine at the "assumed" jesus, they must have used the Julian calendar as well so that makes his mythical birth the same day as Newtons
"It just happens to be a day that mopst western Christians celebrate His birth." - thats a recently modern spin because the facts have unraveled the bollox that's been spouted for nigh on 2000 years
good grief, one minute Newton is a Catholic and the next he's Church of England..... Anyway it was safer to be a believer in that time so you didn;t get burnt at the stake or drowned as a witch.
You can't disprove that something doesn;t exist. Even the few scientists that are still believers haven't provided proof that a god exists. its a very naive childish attempt at an argument along these lines.
The only living god is Eric Clapton of course.
"objective truth" - eh???? ppssssttt. the book of fairy tales didn;t change the world, only the stupid idiots to the west of Palestine
If those two are helplessly retarded, just how low do you fit into the grand scheme of things? they probably crush you under their feet as they walk.
"Sorry if anyone was offended. It was intended to be all in good fun." - why? being offended is their personal problem
" Christmas is the CELEBRATION of the birth of Jesus and NOT the actual birth of Jesus" - this spinning of the date's purpose is getting quite popular, this usuallky happens when the "fact" as previously propagated has lost its factual content
most racists say that
as real as the tooth fairy
it was a time topical joke, happens all year round so why get "offended" ?
" three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus: two in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three has been questioned, and one is generally accepted as having been altered by Christians, most scholars believe they are at least partially authentic." - from the said article, says it all really and they were written years after the event so its not conclusive at all so in my book, it hasn't been proved he existed. you'd think the historians/diary writers/journalists of the day would have written about the "miracles" immediately. Its ll too tenuious
"On this day long ago, a child was born " - has this been patented? these sort of topical reference jokes are used all year round so didn't "do a dick thing"