User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
why athiest doesnt exhist

athiest does not exhist because an athiest does not believe in god because he has proof that god does not exhist. but i have never met anybody that has disproved the exhistence of god. so calling yourself an athiest is wrong. what you should be calling yourself is agnostic which doesnt know if there is a god. they just havent had proof that there is a god. so everytime an athiest sais prove god why dont they disprove god. thats why an athiest does not exhist.

"Atheist" is a definition, so it exists as a concept.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods. We exist, too. This definition includes what we would call "strong atheism", or a belief there are no gods. It also includes "agnosticism", the assertion that the existence of a god is unknowable. All of these people do not believe in gods, so they are atheists.

The burden of proof (of a claim) is on the person making the claim. Various people in the world (theists) are claiming that there is a god. We would like to see some convincing evidence of this claim. Until we do, we are justified in not believing the claim. It's not our job to disprove whatever god you make up. Believe me, there is very little agreement between different people's definitions of god.

Let's use your "reasoning" on a practical example. I'll claim I have a million dollars in my desk drawer at home. I claim that you must believe me unless you can prove my claim is false. Since you think this reasoning is sound, would you cosign a loan for me, for, say half a million dollars (or whatever credit you're worth)? I claim to have the money in my drawer to back up the loan and you can't prove I don't have it, so I must. It's a safe bet, right? Will you do it? If not, why not?


athiest do not believe in god for what reason? what proof do they have that shows that god does not exhist. and we do have proof that is the bible. if you choose not to believe the truth then thats your case. but as bad of a proof is atleast we base our proof on something. and athiest is knowing that there is no god so that means you must have proof that there is no god so where is it? you have none. thats why your always asking people to have proof of god because you havent disproved him


I don't believe because I don't see any evidence for a god. I assume you don't worship the god of ancient Greece, Zeus, do you? If not, then you are an atheist with respect to that god. I just believe in fewer gods than you do.

As I explained, the person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Please answer my earlier question. If you won't (or can't), please understand that my time is valuable. If you're not willing to participate in a dialog, then please don't expect anyone else to do so.

don im not gonna answer to ridiculus question. and again athiesm is a belief. you have to base your belief on something but just because you have never seen god that doesnt mean its not there. its like air you cant see it but you know its there. or do you have to have somebody prove it to you. and if you want me to prove air then why dont you disprove it. the same way you have to disprove god


You are asking me to believe in your god without evidence. I asked you to believe I have a million dollars without evidence. You claimed my question is ridiculous. I agree. Your position is equally ridiculous. That was the point.

You claim that atheism is a belief. I have explained to you that atheism is the LACK of a belief. See the definition on the front page of our web site. We have a whole community of people who call themselves atheists and who define themselves by their LACK of belief. Take a look at other atheist web sites, too. We're not some strange branch of atheism. Don't you think that an atheist has a better idea of what "atheism" means than some guy off the street who learned his definition from who-knows-where?

We are a community of skeptics. With regard to most claims, we want to see evidence. Until we do, we do not believe those claims. Claims about gods are no different to us than claims about money, politics, public policy, health claims, or how we live our lives. We live our lives based on evidence and reason. If you claimed to have a cure for cancer, we would also want evidence. If you said that we had to prove that you didn't have a cure for cancer, we would ALSO write you off as a quack.

Mankind has created thousands of gods over the centuries. Why is yours any different than those? The fact that you believe in something is not convincing to me. People are mistaken all the time.

If you (or Ravi Zacharias, or Pat Robertson, or Ted Haggard) can provide convincing evidence that there is a god, then most atheists will re-evaluate our (lack of) belief based on the new evidence. I'm one of those atheists who has actively looked at the evidence for gods and all that I have seen is based on unsupported assertions, emotional manipulation, and lies. If someone lies to me to get me to believe in their god, I can only draw the conclusion that it's a scam. Wouldn't you agree?

Atheists exist because there is no solid evidence that gods exist.


ok imagine you take the physical world and you slice it up to a bunch of different pieces. for example a book. you know it came from paper which comes from trees which comes from fibers then atoms and atoms came from the big bang big bang from an explosion and so on. the physical universe has to come from something else that is physical but you guys havent proved that. you guys believe that the physical universe just popped up out of no where. to me that sounds very ridiculuos. so i think that some one that is not physical made the physical universe. which i would call god. also known jesus. which in my case and 2.1 other billion people. so thats something else that i dont get that you wrote 1/3 of the world believe that jesus is god


The lack of knowledge about something isn't an argument FOR something else. If you'd like to argue that a god exists, then you have to provide evidence FOR that claim. If you think it's convincing that 1/3 of the people believe in a particular god, you should perhaps be MORE convinced by the 2/3rds that don't believe in that god. Both arguments are logical fallacies, called arguments from popularity. Neither should be convincing as large groups of people have been (and can be) wrong.

To answer the rest of your question, there are two things that are important to understand from physics. At its smallest scales of the universe, where quantum physics is the best explanation, there are things happening all the time without cause. Read about zero point energy. It's caused by matter and corresponding antimatter being created (from nothing) and then combining again (to create nothing). They know this is going on because they can measure it happening.

At the scale of cosmology (the very large), we believe that the total matter+energy in the universe is zero. From Einstein, matter and energy are interchangeable. There's matter, stars, planets, galaxies and such. There's also the negative energy (stored energy) that it takes to pull all that matter apart against the gravitational pull that would otherwise pull it back together. When physicists add that all up, it comes to nothing.

Both of these facts lead us to believe that the universe as we know it may have spontaneously arisen from nothing. It just changed form. There are things that are still not known, such as why there is so much more matter than antimatter. Also, there appears to be additional types of matter and energy that we have evidence exists, but we don't yet understand. These things are being worked out by cosmologists and in high energy physics experiments, such as are happening in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) between Switzerland and France.

As we learn more, we are understanding more about the origin of the universe and how it came to be. My money is on the physicists for eventually figuring this out. If it all sounds crazy, just remember that as recent as two hundred years ago, many people believed that lightning was the wrath of some god in the sky. Now, we take electricity and magnetism for granted. In another couple of hundred years, we'll look back on today and snicker at how quaint some of our ideas are.


If you haven't yet seen it, there's a wonderful video/rap song about the LHC that has a fair amount of educational content. It brings tears to my eyes.


a scientist from oxford university has said that "the chances of the physical universe where to just come out of know where would be a 1 out of so mch that the number is more then the atoms in the universe." he also said that any really good scientist would have to agree with him.


Please provide the scientist's name and the full quote in context.

the scientist name is vickryme scingie. and he is a scientist in whales. and this is what he said "the possibility of the human enzyme being created by random is 1 to the 10th power of 40 thousand which is more than the amount of atoms in the universe.


Thanks, but I couldn't find anything about this person on the Internet. Perhaps you have misspelled the name.

His numbers may be accurate. Nobody is claiming that enzymes ARE created by random chance. Enzymes are created by organisms that use them to live.

I don't see how this relates to atheism. Sorry.


the way that this relates to athiesm is that im trying to say that the possibilities of the universe just happening is impossible and there had to be something else that created it such as god


What is the probability that a god was created from nothing? I think it's pretty unlikely, don't you?


do you have the stats for it. i dont think so. so until you show the probability i will believe in a god. and i have the bible which sais that he is the alpha and omega the is no time for him which means that he has always been god. the problem with mankind is that we think that time exhist but time is man made thing. but god believes there is no time so he has always been there. its just that humans cant think that somebody has been there for ever because we live and die so we think its impossible for something to have been there for ever


If a god is infinite as many people claim, then the probability of him popping into existence is 0.

I can understand a god that is eternally non-existent. If you claim (without evidence) he has always existed, then why can't the universe have always existed? I can make a similar claim and remove any need for a god. You are just making up stories about a god without demonstrating that one exists. You're in good company, though. None of the billions of people that believe in gods have convincing evidence for any of them. Fortunately, the number of non-believers is growing.

The Bible is a book of fairy tales used as a justification to persecute and murder people. It's a Rorschach test for the morally challenged. I wish all the people who think the Bible is all that would take some responsibility for the harm done in the name of that book and it's god character.

I'm pretty sure you will believe in god no matter what I say. The fantasy of a perpetual orgasm (after you die) and a big daddy watching you now is much more appealing that the reality of this world (and the reason it takes to navigate it). Enjoy your fantasy, but please understand that it doesn't absolve you from the responsibility of your beliefs.

Tell me this, if Jesus' divine purpose was to die for your sins shouldn't you be thrilled he got killed so that you would get your jackpot? Wouldn't you kill him yourself for the perpetual orgasm if you had the chance? Remember God wanted him to suffer horribly and die, you'd just be making God happy. Would you drive the nails yourself for a one way trip to heaven? How do you and the other Christians justify the systematic murder of millions of Jews for supposedly killing Jesus (in the fairy tale), when you BENEFIT infinitely from his death? Would you claim that Christianity is systematically wrong since it made such a "mistake"? If the Bible (that you believe with all your heart) says, "An eye for an eye", how many Christians should be put to death (in a like manner) in response? Or is Jesus just a convenient excuse to kill without responsibility?

I look forward to your answers.


the universe hasnt benn able to exhist because he didnt and the universe didnt pop out of know where god created it.

and for your speech that you said about the bible being fairy tales. 40 different people have created it they were all in different times but they believed in the same thing. in fact for example daniel predicted that a country will be divided by four then two and finally rejoin again which was the roman empire so how can by coisidence this man write a whole book on prophecies and it be correct which this is not the only prophecie he had predicted. you can take other ones such as isiah which predicted on how christ wold be beaten. and you take all these historical events and miracuoluos events and it only leads to one thing. and one more thing a schollar in princeton named bruce smetsburgh said "if you were to take the 20,000 lines in the new testament any schollar can safely say that there is 99.6 or more pecent that all the historical facts are true." that is more then double of any other piece of acient writing. so the bible isint just fairy tails.

no we shouldnt get thrilled that he died im actually very saddened. but let me tell you something if someone where to push out of a bus and then they die because of it would you be happy? (and jesus wasnt a fairy tail they have proof that he was alive). and the jews didnt kill him it was us with our sin he could have been out of there like nothing he could have sent angels and they would all have prevented his death he did it because he wanted to do it for us not to go to hell.

and you said that christians are wrong people because they kill. but let me ask you a question have you ever seen an athiest hospital or a medical center or them going to africa to help them the kids in africa. ive never seen it but if you have then tell me. but i have seen christian hospitals and christiand helping out kids in africa. so how can they be horible.

oh and one more thing i dont believe in religion i believe in a relationship with christ. i agree with you that religion has killed many people but i hate religion i just love jesus.

and i know how ever many more stats i give you your gonna keep on believing that god doesnt exhist. but i hope your heart softens and you could know god is real and he loves you.

im looking forward to your answers.

I had asked you how your god came to exists and gave you some reasoning that that was very unlikely.

As for the universe, why would you assume it hasn't already existed?

I won't be responding to your other assertions (that you gave without justification) until you respond to each of my questions in my last post first. If we're having a dialog, then it's your turn to respond (not dodge). Until you do, this will be my last response.


because there is also a very unlikely chance that the universe has exhisted for ever its physically impossible the chances are 1 to the number is so big that its bigger than the amount of atoms. now since i have answered i expect you to answer to my last post. and i expect you would because then that wouldnt be very polite since we are having a dialog.


It's amazing to me that you can find my reply embedded deep in the web page but you are unable to find the questions I asked specifically for your reply. In case you missed it, I've included them again in this post.

I see no need to be polite to someone who spews bullshit, lies, and plays games. Yes, your Vickryme Scingie claim was a lie. You claim to be a follower, but but you don't believe in your own god's commandments. You only believe the parts were you get your perpetual orgasm. Apparently, spewing bullshit is OK if it's for your god. Why should anyone take you or your religion seriously? I've met very few Christians who aren't happy to lie and play mind games. It seems to be a religion for children and the ignorant.

You claim that the universe must have come into existence. I see no reason why the same (unsupported) logic can't be applied to your god. Who created your god? (Answer: every god is completely a product of the human imagination.)

Now for my earlier questions for which you owe me a proper response:

Tell me this, if Jesus' divine purpose was to die for your sins shouldn't you be thrilled he got killed so that you would get your jackpot? Wouldn't you kill him yourself for the perpetual orgasm if you had the chance? Remember God wanted him to suffer horribly and die, you'd just be making God happy. Would you drive the nails yourself for a one way trip to heaven? How do you and the other Christians justify the systematic murder of millions of Jews for supposedly killing Jesus (in the fairy tale), when you BENEFIT infinitely from his death? Would you claim that Christianity is systematically wrong since it made such a "mistake"? If the Bible (that you believe with all your heart) says, "An eye for an eye", how many Christians should be put to death (in a like manner) in response? Or is Jesus just a convenient excuse to kill without responsibility?


not once have i showed any disrespect or lied. so i would like you to show the same respect for me. vickryme scinge does exhist and you could search him up on you tube he is mentioned in this radio t.v show by ravi zacharias when he talks about why the universe exhist.

as for the speech you said about jesus below i have already answered that apperantly your not reading my posts so if you could look back at and see when i reply to you two posts ago then you can see what i had told you.


You have lied. There is no "vickryme scingie". I have searched on the web. Even if there were, you were trying to use his name in efforts to make a (logically flawed) argument from incredulity. You didn't get to make your flawed argument because you got caught up in a lie. Pretty sad.

You have also made all sorts of wild claims about the accuracy of the Bible. They are claims I know to be false. If you can't provide evidence for those claims, then please understand I consider you a liar. Whether you think you're lying is besides the point.

You do believe that you will go to heaven, don't you? ... A place where you and all the other Christians will watch down to hell where I and all the other atheist will be writhing in eternal torment. I consider your entire religion disrespectful. Since you are advocating for it, please understand that I'm responding in kind.

I've answered your Christian charity question on another thread.

You said "no we shouldnt get thrilled that he died im actually very saddened. but let me tell you something if someone where to push out of a bus and then they die because of it would you be happy?"

I posed the question because, being a Christian, you supposedly believe that Jesus' death and suffering is the path to your own eternal life (and perpetual bliss/orgasm). I guess Christian theology is not your strong suit. I was trying to determine whether you valued you own trip to heaven at the expense of Jesus life, which your own god wanted to get killed. Apparently, you don't believe in your religion's claims enough to really even understand the costs and benefits of actions according to the religion.

But here's the important point. Like other Christians, you don't feel any sense of responsibility for what harm has been caused by your collective beliefs. You've each individually made a deal with (your make-believe) god for your (make believe) perpetual orgasm in heaven. This means, that as a whole, the believers do NOT take responsibility for the harm the religion does. The religion is therefore immoral.

I have a very soft heart, by the way. I care more about those people that Christianity killed than Christians do. I care more about the victims of pedophile priests than Christians do. I care more about science education than Christians do, and so on.


you didnt answer my question. and i totally agree with you christians have caused alot of problems. but do you know what in this day of age people are considered christians. catholics, santeria, and jehova witnisses. jehova witnesses dont even believe in jesus. cathloics are just back sliders and they believe its almost impossible for you go to hell. and santeria is witch craft. so where your getting your information that christians have killed many people you are reffering to catholics jehova witnesses and santeria. catholics have killed many people especially in a time frame called the dark ages. but do you know who they killed people like me that you have to accept jesus for you to go to heaven. they killed anybody that didnt believe that there is porgritory. and the deaths that have come from the christians are from the catholics for example the roman empire was catholic and they killed millions of christians. all of the roman emperors killed christians. for example nero he killed the apostale paul and peter. and the apostale paul was catholic until the road of damascus where he turned christian. what i am arguing is that catholics shouldnt be considered christians. thats why you blame all the killings of people on christians because catholics are considered christians. but if you were to take away all the deaths caused by catholics and only use the deaths caused by real christians (which real christians would have to have a relationship with god) the number would be alot less. religion is horrible and it has killed many people but i dont believe in religion i believe in a relationship with jesus. and your heart is not soft because appereantly you have a hatred for people that love jesus


Your "argument" is a variant of the "No true Scotsman fallacy". Look it up. You're trying to redefine Christianity to the part of Christianity that appeals to you. If you don't like the other parts of Christianity, please understand that it's Christianity's problem--not mine.

I hate liars and killers and people who apologize for them. Why don't you?

By the way, you are proving my point about Christians needing to lie, use emotional manipulation, and logical fallacies to defend their religion. Why can't you defend it with the truth and reason?


hitler was a catholic yes. so if you wanna blame catholics for that thats fine. but did you know baptist took about 1 million jews out of europe and put them in argentina and south american countries through tunnels. why do you think there is so many countries that have jews in south america. and the dark ages the catholics killed christians how come in that point at time there was a difference between catholics and christians. but now there isnt. there is a big difference between catholics and christians. so why dont you instead of calling me a liar and calling me manipulative why dont youread the churches history and see all the stuff that the christians went through.


You need to make an important decision in your life.

You need to decide whether you're going to close your mind, embrace ignorance, and become a true Christian. On this path, you will ignore any evidence that challenges your beliefs. You will gladly lie, manipulate, and facilitate harm to others because your relationship with some invisible god (for which you have no evidence) is more important that real, living human beings. You will do this because you believe that this world is not important--the only thing that is important is for you to get to heaven, where you will believe you will live forever in orgasmic bliss. If you follow this path, you will effectively become a traitor to humanity and you will deserve any maltreatment you get from humans who are not also traitors, though this maltreatment will feed into your persecution complex.

The other path is to examine the evidence, learn critical thinking skills, truly examine the veracity of your beliefs, and get a solid education. You can become an asset to humanity and embrace your fellow human beings. Notice that I'm not telling you what conclusions you will reach when you examine the evidence. For all of us in the ACA, when we have evaluated religious claims we found them to be infeasible. I believe that you will reach the same conclusion that we have, but I don't mean to tell you that will happen. I am not pushing dogma or trying to be a prophet.

Note that this is a conscious choice that you need to make. If you choose Christianity, then you become morally responsible for your part of the harm that belief system has cause to other humans. While, as a Christian, you might embrace willful ignorance, please note that other people might be basing their negative attitudes toward you and your religion on real evidence. If you choose reason, you might lose the fantasy of perpetual orgasms in heaven, but you also loose your fear of the mythical hell. Most atheists find it freeing. Reality might not always be pretty, but you have the potential to improve it.

As for my interaction with you, if you want to embrace ignorance and continue spewing nonsense, I probably won't bother trying to broaden your mind any more. I'm getting tired of trying to teach pigs to sing. I'll probably just continue to point out that Christianity needs lies, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation to prop it up. Eventually, you'll get tired and hang out with other close-minded people and insulate yourself from the real world.

If, instead, you show some desire to learn, this is a good forum to ask questions of atheists for why they have drawn the conclusions they have and hone your critical thinking skills. If you don't have an interest in these things, then I have to wonder why you are wasting everyone's time here. We have finite lives.

Good luck with your decision. Don't take it lightly.


your telling me to learn from you but you dont even know how to spell my name. but not only that it i have been posting it every time i write something.

but now i will tell you something you have 2 decisions in your life. you can choose the atheist life where they hate christians. and believe that the universe popped up out of no where and have no proof of it. and then waste your life trying to make christianity seem like this horrible thing. (even though i have given you much evidence in everything you have showed me. for example all the catholic stuff and all the other nonsense you have written. and then not only that but when i write you some thing you dont even bother to write me back but instead write me this nonsense of a post that you left me in your last post.) and keep on being a fool. and then waste your life thinking you have found what you have looking for but then when you die you find out everything you thougt was true was nonsense. and god was real and what i was saying was really true.

or you can take the path of christianity. which is where you will die a happy man thinking you will go to heaven and not have to fear anything because god is on your side and enjoy your life. and make it to heaven when you die.

but it is your choice so please dont take it lightly.

i cannot force you to believe in god. but i hope you make the right decision.

so god bless. and remember that god loves you.


I'm sorry about misspelling your name. If you care so much about spelling, perhaps you could improve yours, too.

You're presenting "Pascal's Wager"--that it's better to worship a god who you think will give you goodies when you die (or who will torture you the most if you don't worship him.) It's a tired and flawed argument. I did a whole TV show on the topic that you can watch so that you can learn how stupid it is. See

Of course threatening atheists with hell is one of the most endearing traits of Christianity. It's one of the main reasons why we think your completely full of shit when you try to tell us how nice and wonderful you are.

"The happiness of the elect will consist in part of witnessing the torments of the damned in hell, among whom may be their own children, parents, husbands, wives and friends; ... but instead of taking the part of their miserable being, they will say 'Amen!', 'Hallelujah!', 'Praise the Lord!'." (Rev. Nathaniel Emmons / 1745-1840)

Just think that you'll be in eternal bliss in heaven and having a perpetual orgasm while watching people like me writhe in pain for ever and ever. I think that's Christianity's best selling point, don't you?


no don i dont think thats its best point. and again you didnt answer to any of my questions. and the person who said that was calvanist. i believe he is wrong but just because one man said one thing doesnt mean that it is true. god loves you and wants you to be with him he will dread if you go to hell.

don i never said you were going to hell. i have no judgement in that, thats gods descision. i just wanted to show you why what you believe is ridiculous. i respect a muslim more then an atheist. because atleast they believe in something. they are not fools and say that there is no god.

god bless.


Which of the following statements is wrong:

1) God is just. 2) After you die, you will have complete knowledge. 3) If you go to heaven, you will be in eternal bliss.

If none of those statements is wrong, then Emmons' quote is right on. Those in heaven will look down on the suffering of those in hell and be in orgasmic bliss about the (just) torments of others. It follows logically from common religious convictions. If you don't think it follows then explain why.

You worship a god that tortures people. You are just as evil as your god.

Atheists demand evidence. I've explained that to you many times. I'm sorry if you don't get it. The only "evidence" that Christians have is lies, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation. You worship a god who tortures people without good evidence that the god even exists, so, I have to wonder if you don't just find the torture appealing.

By the way, Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the god of Abraham. They all think that it's noble to kill your own child to please their god. By analogy, all three of these religions have demonstrated that their followers are happy to kill, lie, and steal for their god.

All of these religions are equally evil, as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me, if a fool can figure out there's no god, what does that say about Christians?


yes all three are correct but that does not prove anything that man said. how does those 3 things being true prove that we are gonna watch you go to hell.

what lies have i said you have no proof ive lied. and what makes our stories fallacies i mean we have letters, biographys, and the body of the people like paul and peter.

i dont think its noble to kil my own child where did you get that information. if you knew the bible and not argue something you dont know about you can see that abraham never killed issac. and the bible strictly sais not to murder. and atheism is evil not one person that represent atheism is not evil they have all stolen, manipulated, and lied to get what they want.


I don't understand what you mean by "does not prove anything that man said." You do understand that theology is all made up by man, don't you?

You liked about Vikram Singh. It was a double payoff for me that both your idol Ravi and you told the same lie. Note that Ravi bears no responsibility for things that you said.

Read Gen 22 for the glorification of killing humanity to make your god happy. I know the Bible better than most Christians, by the way. The Bible says not to kill, but Christians say the Old Testament is bullshit. They want to pick and choose what they follow.

Atheism is evil? How do you get from not believing in fairy tales to killing? What would you kill for? In Gen 22, Abraham went to kill his own son for God's blessing and land. Christians believe that God/Jesus hold the kingdom to heaven. That's worth killing for, and many Christians have done just that.


you havent stopped judging. i know the bible way more than you. and im only 14. my dad is a pastor for 22 years i grew up in the church and i have never heard that the old testament is a bunch of garbage the only thing that we say is that we should have more than 1 wife unlike solomon and abraham and david. because we are in a new covenate. if you read the bible then you would know that there are 2 diffrent covenates but when jesus died they made a new covenate. but the old testament is very good. it teaches us alot. and one more thing the reason why you think the bible is a bunch of krap is because you dont understand it. jesus spoke in parables so people like you that would try to look at the bible so simple couldnt understand it. you have to study and research the bible. sometimes i research it in hebrew and in greek. i bet you never do that you dont take effort to read the bible you just read it and hope the answers are right there. thats why i know more then you in the bible because i take time and dont assume everything.

god said in the new covenate not to we do what the new covenate sais. and abraham was going to kill issac because god told him to. god wanted to see if he was obedient. but god wasnt going to let abraham kill him. thats why abraham never did kill issac.

jonathan said, "don im not gonna answer to ridiculus question."

Would you mind pointing out the questions that you didn't answer because they were too ridiculous? I didn't see any that were as ridiculous as your (air) hypothesis.

jonathan said, "and again athiesm is a belief. you have to base your belief on something but just because you have never seen god that doesnt mean its not there.

Don't you see how ridiculous what you are saying is? A belief has to be based on something that you believe. How can an atheist have a belief based on something that they don't believe? Something that has not been proven to be a fact, like god, is a belief based on nothing. Atheists don't have beliefs. Anything that has not been proven to be a fact is not true. Anything that atheists deem true is based on knowledge not belief. Beliefs are often wrong but a proven fact is a truth.

jonathan said, "its like air you cant see it but you know its there. or do you have to have somebody prove it to you. and if you want me to prove air then why dont you disprove it. the same way you have to disprove god"

No, jonathan air is not the same as god. You can prove that air exists. You are giving such tedious examples of why you believe in something that isn't there. When you get answers to your questions like (the bible proves nothing) you don't like the answer - it doesn't fit in with your uninformed paradigm - if the truth hurts don't ask! We tell it like it is!

You seem to think that if you can't see something you also can't prove that it is there. If I can't see air that means it is not there? This is not true. We can prove that air exists, unlike god, air and many other things that you can't see can be proven to be there through science. There are many ways to detect that air, gravity and many things you can't see exists. There is no way to prove god exists; we just have to take your word for it.

I don't see air but I can feel it. Air is primarily made up of two elements, nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrogen makes up 78.05% of air and oxygen another 20.95%. The remaining less than 1% is primarily argon, but carbon dioxide, neon, helium, methane and krypton are also present in air. Air also contains suspended dust, spores, and bacteria, as well as water. The amount of air varies tremendously with location, temperature, and time. In deserts and at low temperatures, the content of water can be less that 0.1% by volume. In warm, humid zones the air may contain over 6% water.

Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier was born in Paris, France. He became known as the Father of Modern Chemistry. Mr. Lavoisier took the beliefs of his day - that matter consisted of basically four elements: fire, water, earth and air and explored them in a way that gave us modern chemistry. One of his greatest contributions was a book he wrote on the breakdown of those areas. Lavoisier's attended the College Mazarin from 1754 to 1761, studying chemistry, botany, astronomy, and mathematics. At that time it was believed the world consisted of four elements: earth, air, water and fire. In order to learn more about the air he studied how things burned. He used Joseph Priestley's ideas as a basis for some of his studies. Mr. Lavoisier discovered that not all the air was burned up during the burning process. The only part that burned was the oxygen, as he named it. The part that was left behind he called "azote" which we know as nitrogen. These were major discoveries. Once he realized that the air was made up of different gases he decided to try and find out what other things were made of. He discovered water was made up of hydrogen and oxygen. The scientific term element came from Mr. Lavoisier. "A substance that cannot be broken down any further".

He also studied things like the properties of heat, what form and shape matter can take and processes like breathing.

It would be a really good idea to get some science books, and read them, before you write anything more about what we know and how we know they exist.

Look, I'm just a college sophomore, trying desperately not to be "sophomoric," but could you elaborate on the statement: "Anything that has not been proven to be a fact is not true." It seems silly on its face, but I must be wrong.

Yes, it is silly for someone to want proof of a claim before they believe it to be a fact if you are a godmonkey worshiping idiot.

I think that would only seem silly to someone who just believes things without proof or evidence. It's not silly to those of us who require substantiation.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If there is no evidence to believe something is true then it can be considered false. Evidence includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. The burden of proof lies with the believer.

Anyone saying that if someone cannot prove the lack of existence of something means it exists is wrong. Anyone asking for this is shifting the burden of proof. Just find something that has not yet been proven as real and choose to believe in it.

In essences, what she is saying is, I don't have to believe something is true that nobody has proven. It's real simple to understand if you don't have an agenda.

This is essentially the same statement. "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." Christopher Hitchens

The statement she made is not difficult to understand, and I notice others making essentially the same statement. You can discuss it with them because otherwise you are not getting any further answers here; it's just too irksome to continue to discuss things with people who have a problem with a simple concept.

Look around I'm sure you can find others you don't agree with.


For something to be considered a fact it has to have been proven true. Maybe that sounds silly to you, because you are silly. I think people who believe things that are not proven facts are silly. A sorry situation. Example: Someone makes nasty accusations about someone that they are jealous of, and some people might believe them, even though they are bald-faced lies.

I'm just trying to learn...if I need to be called an idiot to do so, it's OK with me.

When I read a sentence that says: "Anything that has not been proven to be a fact is not true." I assume that the writer means, in fact, that, "Anything that has not been proven to be a fact is not true."

My concern is that there clearly have been things that were NOT proven that were in fact true. Heliocentrism. Gravity. Evolution.

Is it NOT reasonable to assume, therefore, that there are currently things that are true that have not been PROVEN to be true?

I don't believe anything that hasn't been proven to be true...I also don't believe that there are NO things that haven't been proven to be true that are true. I apologize for the awkward triple negative and look forward to my continued education.

I feel that this is a ruse to discredit someone, but I am going to comment. The greatest invention of the human mind is the scientific method, the systematic, skeptical approach to claims about the way the world works.

You have extrapolated a comment about the difference in a *faith* based belief and a *fact* based belief into things that were never involved in the original statement. So, nothing you have said has anything to do with her remarks that were addressing jonathan's comment, not yours. jonathan said, "and again athiesm is a belief. You have to base your belief on something but just because you have never seen god that doesn't mean its not there." Believing on *faith* is a concession away from reality, we don't put our confidence in things that have glaring discrepancies, like the bible. It was necessary for you to take that sentence out of context in order to have something you thought you could argue about. And you still don't have a good argument as far as I'm concerned.

I'm saying this; you need to look up some definitions (fact - theory - law) before you continue. In science, a theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. The Earth orbiting the Sun is an observed fact. An observed fact is not a theory; it is an item of evidence supporting theories such as the heliocentric theory, gravity or the theory of evolution. Science changes with additional data. That is its strength. Scientists keep gathering more and more data and checking existing theories against that data. When data supports a theory they get more confident in that theory and when data contradicts a theory they formulate new ones.

For example, using all the data available today, the most accurate description of the solar system says that the earth and the sun orbit each other. There is a barycenter between each of the planets and the sun. Jupiter's is external to the body of the sun. Earth's is inside the body of the sun. I think it is reasonable to say that Copernicus was unaware of this. That doesn't mean he was wrong, he was more right than Aristotle and less right than we are today. Science is full of these sorts of refinements. Your statement was not all that accurate. Science reaches a point where one theory best explains all available data. Science is constrained by available data, available theories and available tests, but scientists eventually reached a point where they could show that our solar system is an infinitesimal mote in the outer regions of a galaxy, which is just one of millions in a vast universe.

I'm not so sure how much of an attack you can mount on modern evolutionary biology. You might do better if you mount an attack on Intelligent Design by pointing out that there is no theory that has ever been tested.

The bible says that in the beginning god created man and woman and went on from there. But we know that humans were not the first life forms on planet Earth. There were dinosaurs and other various creatures long before humans. This has been proven through fossil records. Creationists deny this, and some have rigged fantastic frauds to try and prove otherwise, but they have always failed. Humans weren't present on Earth until a billion years after it's creation not a week.

In science a theory is much more than a hypothesis or an assumptions. In science, there are some theories that are supported by so much evidence that they are widely considered to be facts.

Gravity - Anything that has mass has gravity. Einstein's correct view of gravity replaced Newton's view of gravity. So technically, all of Newton's Laws and formulae are not correct. Technically, to be super-accurate, they have to be modified for the relavistic effects. The relavistic effects are so miniscule at velocities at less than 10% of lightspeed, and very small masses like the Earth and Sun (compared to Black holes, neutron stars, etc) that for all practical purposes, we can still successfully and accurately use Newton's laws and equations for most normal forces and velocities.

Nothing to this day has disproved evolution, including, DNA. Evolution is now considered a theory and a fact. Biogeography - Homologies - Vestiges - Atavisms - Ring Species - Haldane's Rule - Endogenous retroviral insertions - all support evolution. There has been a considerable amount of work in the field of evolutionary biology in the last 150 years. Evolution is one of the foundational theories of modern science.

This is not the same thing as, "It's in the bible, I believe it, and that's that!"

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I really am trying to learn and I have no interest in "discrediting" anyone. I just thought that the statement wouldn't hold up. For the sake of argument, would you defend the statement on its own? My own interests tend more toward language and its use and this may be why I originally picked up on what I perceived as an indefensible statement. I feel that I am fairly conversant with the definitions to which you suggested I refer. I have no notion what relevance the Bible references have, as I did not mention them and,in fact, have no use for them personally.

Oh! You wanted me to leave off what she copied and put before her answer to indicate what she was actually answering. How dishonest, but not at all surprising, that's what most fundamentalists do to prove an atheist is wrong about something.

jonathan said, "athiest do not believe in god for what reason? what proof do they have that shows that god does not exhist. and we do have proof that is the bible you have none.

The bible is not proof of god since it has been proven false. (Example) Genesis has been proven to be a false record, and for that reason some of us don't believe it is true. It is not the way anything really happened. People who persist in a belief in something that is false, and even try to manufacture evidence for it, are people who are willing to lie to prove they are right. They are not trying to find out what the truth is. Many of us don't believe lies or support them. If you can't prove to me that what you are saying is true I am not obligated to believe it. That's what she is saying. A fundamentalist wouldn't understand that since they do believe things without proof, and even in spite the evidence that it is not true. What she said boils down to this, weather you think so or not, if we find that we don't actually have any valid information we don't believe something is true. A fundamentalist Christian would have a big problem with that statement.

Atheists certainly do have an ethical basis for refraining from participating in scurrilous lies. I judiciously pointed out that you took the sentence out of context and applied it to something that wasn't involved in their discussion because I didn't want to be involved in a dishonest fraudulent discussion. But even with duplicity you still don't have an argument. The statements you were making were false; and I made it abundantly clear that I do agree with her statement. You disagree with Linda because you do agree with jonathan. You are here for no other reason than to prove Linda is wrong, as well as, to change what the original debate was about. You have done that repeatedly, and everything you said there was proven wrong too. If you don't understand the answer that's your problem. You don't understand people's answers a lot. Nobody is interested in your silly little game.

I think I made it clear you don't have an argument, that's what I said, and you don't get it. I proved you were wrong period, and you don't recognize that fact. Everyone knows why I put that ending. Atheists and skeptics do not believe things that are not based on provable facts. Fundamentalist, Christians, creationists and advocates of Intelligent Design do.

The views you have expressed are the same as creationists who claim that creation is equally valid as evolution in answer to the origin of life, but there is no equal validation here unless all evidence for evolution is ignored. Since when was an unproven theory "good science"? Proof on faith. Believe in anything you like, but don't expect an atheist to agree with you. I am not interested in fabricated stupid discussions. These statements are inseparable from what Linda said; go argue with them.

Sam Harris "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Christopher Hitchens "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

If you can't provide any evidence that what you are saying is true than I can say it is not true, and this is the end of the trail for you, don't write me back.


schollars have proved that the new testament is 99.6 percent true so idk what your talking about the bible not being true.

And 99.99999999999% of Christians are happy to spew bullshit because they care more about their perpetual orgasm than the truth. (That includes you, Johnathan.)

Trust me Johnathan, you're not helping your reputation or your religion by making false claims. You remind me of a shady used car salesman trying to sell a lemon. Apparently, you yourself even understand what you're selling is garbage, so you feel compelled to lie to try to dress it up. Boy are we ever convinced!!! Maybe if you tell bigger lies, you'll get more converts. That's been the Christian strategy for centuries.


you wanna know how much of an idiot you are! the reason why you curse is not because you have to its because your frustrated and you dont have any answers for what i tell you. everything i have told you is from ravi zacharias. all the quotes and all the facts. and one more thing i am 14 years old and have argued with you about a discussion and appereantly i have one this argument because you havent written any answers to my question. so good job loosing a debate to a 14 year old. and disrespecting him! but god still loves you so please dont turn your back on him. god bless.

I'm frustrated because someone on this board is yammering on without knowing what he's talking about.

I've answered all your questions now.

You mention Ravi Zacharias. I'm not impressed. You are the one conversing on this board. If you can't hold up your end of the conversation, then you shouldn't participate. If Ravi Zacharias would like to participate, he can, as well.

As for his "teachings", please understand that I have yet to hear an argument from any Christian apologist that isn't loaded with lies and/or logically flawed. Trust me, I've looked at a lot of these arguments. You need to understand That Ravi makes his living selling this garbage. He makes more money the more compelling the garbage is. By contrast, I make no money from conversations like this, so I have no reason to lie to you.

Your age is irrelevant. It doesn't give you a free pass to spew crap. It also doesn't have any bearing on whether your religion is true.

I'll make you a deal. I'll admit that you "won" your stupid "argument" if you admit that there's no way to defend your religion without lies, emotional manipulation, and logical fallacies. I know that Christianity is damaged goods that needs these crutches. I'd like for you to admit it.


you are a fool for not believing in god. i have told you about the physical universe and it is impossible for the universe just to happen.but you still havent written anything. i will believe in jesus beause there is a 100% chance that he is real and he is lord. so please stop blaspheming and just get to know the father he does love you. god bless.


The fool thing is called the "Ad hominem fallacy". Look it up.

I've asked you to explain why it's possible for your god to just happen. You have yet to do that. By the way, the argument you're making is an application of the "special pleading fallacy". Look it up.

As far as I know blasphemy is a victimless crime. How could I possibly hurt an omnipotent god, even if one existed?

As for claiming that your fantasy loves me, that's emotional manipulation.

Seriously, do you have anything at all that isn't lies, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation?

I believe I've answered your questions about Christian "charity".


it is impossible for something to pop up out of know where. so i believe that somebody made that thing. because you have no proof that universe popped out of know where.

Jonathan said, ray schollars have proved that the new testament is 99.6 percent true so idk what your talking about the bible not being true.

That was false the first time you said it, and it still is because no reliable scholar would say that since there are well known forgeries, conflicting statements and multiple authors of books when there was supposed to be only one. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, (The Pentateuch, the 5 Books of Moses, the Books of the Law, the Law, the Torah) state in numerous places that Moses wrote them. But Scholars and theologians have long accepted the documented evidence that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting their own religious views. A fifth individual cut and pasted the original documents in to the present Pentateuch.

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. A copyist apparently added it in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery.

Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9-20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.

John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger. Most scholars believe the latter.

If all people know about the bible is what they have been told by poorly informed uneducated individuals, they don't know much. If you are read verses without thinking about what the words mean, then you know nothing about the bible. The first few books of the Bible contained several strains that could be identified and separated. There is a J-document and a P-document in the early chapters of Genesis and an E-document later on. As anyone investigates these things you learn, and you know that this raises new questions, because researchers do not think that one person wrote them. People who are essentially ignorant of the facts validate the bible. The Genesis creation story of the creation of the universe, and of the earth, and humanity is wrong in almost every respect. The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning,whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day. They have that backward, and they have plant life being created before the sun. All the scientific evidence proves this is all wrong. The bible says that every plant, and every animal, was created after its own kind, which would indicate that species have been as they are now from the very beginning. The fossil record, and biochemical evidence, geological evidence, and all sorts of other evidence, indicates that species have changed, that there has been a long evolutionary process that has lasted over three billion years. I believe there's enough evidence for us to think that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever to think that a supernatural being exists. There is nothing that we should not be able to examine. When you really think about it being committed to finding out the truth and acquiring knowledge is a much more moral thing.

What is the reason that the bible has a much lower standard than any other historical writing does. The answer is the ministers do not want the bible to be put to any test because when it is it always fails. With any other historical writing when we do not have a reliable record or witnesses it is considered false, except for the bible. We are supposed to accept the bible as the truth without knowing where it came from or how reliable the authors are. Mathew, Mark Luke and John were all written long after the events that they were reporting, and those are not names, they are titles that were given much later on. Nobody knows who wrote nearly all the books of the bible, except for one or two unreliable exceptions. The authorship of at least fifty books of the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible (thirty in the Old Testament and twenty in the New) is unknown.

The books of the Old Testament, instead of having been written from 1520 to 420 BCE, were probably written from 1000 to 100 BCE. The books of the New Testament, instead of having all been written in the first century, many of them were not written until the second century. The greater portion of the books of the bible, including the most important ones, are not authentic, it is not possible that they could have been written by the authors claimed, nor at the time claimed.

Go to - jonathan said, "linda why dont you look at the bible as a history book instead of a religious book.

You came back with the same reply as you gave me and you are wrong. Do you read things before you make those comments. I don't think you read the answer, and I am very sure you don't know what scholars say, but it is what scholars believe. You can add my facts to what was already written, and it still would only a fraction of what is wrong with the bible.


wow now i know why the bible calls you fools. you guys make up a bunch of stuff. go on you tube and search up ravi zacharias bible and you will see im not lieing about the schollar saying that. see the whole video. and what you said about matthew 17:21 and mark 9:29 the reason why they are the same is because there quoting jesus. its like two different books that qoute the same thing. its not like they both said it. they just quoted jesus. and the gospels are written by 4 disciples that look at jesus in a different perspective, for example john looked at jesus as a father. but another disciple wrote it as if jesus was a teacher. so its the life of jesus in the perspective of the disciples. thats why there are things that sound the same because its a biography. just like if 2 different people wrote some events of a historical figure and it sounded the same that dosnt mean they didnt wrote 2 different novels its just that since there writing a biography there are gonna be some events that are gonna be the same.


Biblical Scholars have to listen to what archeologist, scientist and secular scholars say they have found to be true. No educated Biblical scholar would dispute what has been proven. If they did they wouldn't be acceptable as a Scholars. Some scholars found other professions and did tell the truth about the bible. Many of them have written books. Nothing that Ray wrote is not true and it is really only the half of it. You are not saying that you look for Scholars and what they have said. You went to the same sources you have always gone to, apologetics. They would be out of a job if they told the truth. You can't call us fools and not expect to get some thing said to you in return. Your spelling and writing skills do not indicate that you would have the ability to read what Scholars have written.

After Moses was dead, and all his followers were dead, the Pentateuch was written. The work of many writers, and to give it authority it was claimed that Moses was the author. We now know that Moses did not write the Pentateuch. Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when Moses lived. Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is mentioned. Intelligent and honest theologians admit that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person, and that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. Joshua did not write the book that with that name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death. No one knows the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, or of First and Second Samuel, all we know is that Samuel did not write the books with his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor. No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles, all we know is that these books are of no value.

In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers, so, Psalms were not written by David. God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, and an unbeliever wrote Ecclesiastes. The Bible and the ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and stars were specks in the sky. They thought the earth was flat, with Four Corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid. They thought the sun revolved about the earth. They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created a few years before, and the Hebrews were their direct descendants. The writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, and geology. It is wrong about the causes of phenomena, and the cause of death. The Bible is full of mistakes, false theories, myths and blunders and could not have been inspired by a supernatural superior god.

Biblical Scholars admit that the Bible is wrong about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testament knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time.

Biblical Scholars admit that they do not know who wrote the New Testament. They admit that nobody know who wrote the four gospels with the titles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A Hebrew manuscript of these gospels has never been found. All are in Greek. So, educated theologians admit that the Epistles, James and Jude, were written by persons who had never seen one of the four gospels. In these Epistles (James and Jude) no reference is made to any of the gospels, nor to any miracle recorded in them.

There is a great deal more than this but it would take too long. Suffice to say that no scholar or half way decently educated person does not know that most of what Ray has already written is correct, and what I have written is pretty common knowledge among educated people.

THE ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE: Moses was a man who had been raised in the family of Pharaoh and had been taught the law and mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted by God. Moses claimed to have gotten the 10 commandments from God on Mt. Sinai. We know that they came from the Egyptian Book of The Dead. Long before Moses.

john please show me where your facts are. because i have never heard of this. and i am 14 years old maybe thats why i spell so bad. but i am smart enough to argue with you fools. you have no proof of any of this. and what the schollar said was true you can search it up on my last web post it sais the website where to find it. so until you dont see it please stop calling me aq liar. and you say he is a liar but has never proven it.


"There is hardly a biblical scholar in the world actively working on the [authorship] problem who would claim that the Five Books of Moses were written by Moses." R.E. Friedman (that is a Biblical scholar).

"It has long been recognized that Moses cannot have been the author, and that the Pentateuch is in fact anonymous." D.J.A. Clines (that is a Biblical scholar)

Many present-day Fundamentalists and Evangelical Christians continue to teach that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

What does the Bible itself say about authorship of the Pentateuch? There are about two dozen verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and one dozen in the Christian Scriptures, which state that Moses was the author.

The accepted documented theory of scholars (including Biblical Scholars) is that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting his/her own religious views:

So, what scholars are find is changes what "scholars" think about the bible, but there is no effort on the part of the lying clergy to inform their brainwashed followers. That's why there is no telling what uneducated fanatics still think. You have been given facts, and the proof of those facts, and you are either too ignorant to know it; or you won't look for the answers yourself outside of brainwashing material.

In fact, if you are 14, then your reading, spelling and comprehension level is seriously below average. You are unable to spell words that many first graders could spell. You can't argue anything with facts and you don't realize when someone has given you facts. You also do not know what a Biblical or Secular Scholar is. You are making statements without any proof because you made it clear that you think the Bible is proof. No educated person or scholar gives the Bible any credibility. It is wrong in every field science, math, evolution (no six-day creation) that is why fundamentalists hate science. It proves the Bible is false.


i am 14 years old. the reason why i spell bad is because i dont focus on what i am writing i write something but i dont go back and recheck. i write to slow so i think faster then i write so i dont write everything.

as for your biblical knowledge. there are not many writings on what happened those days its almost impossible to find stuff that dates back to those times. really the only thing they have that exhisted in those times was the bible. where are you getting this information from. and why dont you look up josephes. he was a 1st century historian that was not a christian he was not byist. he has many information on moses and what happened in his life.


Scholars who study ancient cultures know that the Old Testament origin is the Ugaritic texts that came from Ugarit. The Hebrews (including the Moabites) adopted not only the Canaanite language but also the Phoenician alphabet for writing it. The discovery of the Ugarit texts shows that the Biblical Psalms, whatever their date are a Phoenician hymnology that had a long tradition behind it.

The Phoenicians also seem likely to have been the intermediaries through whom some of the Egyptian proverbs of Amenemope found their way into the Biblical Book of Proverbs almost verbatim. And the Canaanite origins of chapters VIII-IX of the Book of Proverbs, on the theme of Wisdom are the same themes in the Phoenician literature unearthed at Ugarit. The Sumero-Akkadian story of the creation of the World found its way to Palestine long before the Israelites' coming there, and they learned the stories from the Canaanites on whom they imposed themselves. 'There is a flood mentioned in Canaanite (Phoenician) literature in Hebrew works composed between the seventh and the third century BC in Job, Deutero-Isaiah, Proverbs, Ezekiel, Habakkuk, the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Jubilees, and part of Daniel.

Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit.

Ugarit experienced a very long history. A city was built on the site in the Neolithic period around 6000 BC. The oldest written evidence of the city is found in some texts from the nearby city of Ebla written around 1800 BC. At that time both Ebla and Ugarit were under Egyptian hegemony, which shows that the long arm of Egypt extended all along the west coast of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The population of Ugarit at that time was roughly 7635 people. The city of Ugarit continued to be dominated by the Egyptians through 1400 BC.

The texts discovered at Ugarit were written in one of four languages; Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurritic and Ugaritic. The tablets were found in the royal palace, the house of the High Priest, and some private houses of evidently leading citizens. Ugaritic literature provides an open window on the culture and religion of Israel in its earliest period. From the Literature of Ugarit to the Literature of the Bible

There are no original writings or eyewitnesses to the so-called life of Jesus - what language these myths were written in has no bearing on anything. They are not original.

The OT and NT are Egyptian mythology and savior gods mixed with the idea of death and rebirth. As in all pagan religions there was a connection with the seasons (winter = death, spring = rebirth) and with the sun setting and rising. In the Egyptian myth it became associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and with the new harvest each year in the Nile valley.

I think that you are having difficulty distinguishing between opinion, fact, and argument. It can be proven beyond any doubt that the Jewish religion comes from Ugrait, and the concoction you call Christianity is a mixture of pagan- Jewish myths that have their origin in Egypt. So, no matter what meaning anyone puts on the parables they didn't originate with Christianity.

The oldest New Testament Bible is an archaeological treasure and its origin is in Egypt. The New Testament manuscript in question is the Codex Sinaiticus, distinguished from earlier manuscripts by virtue of its completeness, containing all the canonical texts along with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, the former of which has been shown to have a provenance of Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the Codex Vaticanus, the CS is the oldest intact manuscript, dating to around 350 AD/CE.

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered and evidently written in Egypt and is proof that Christianity had it's origins in Egyptian religion and mythology. It's unquestionably out of Egypt the "Christ" story was invented as a mythical rehash largely of the Egyptian gods Osiris and Horus. The Sinai Peninsula, where this text was found in the oldest Christian monastery, St. Catherine's, was the only established land route to Israel, possessing numerous important Egyptian sites, including a massive fortress and temple to Horus at Tharo/Tharu. In this location, countless thousands of travelers passed between the two nations over a period of several millennia. There was countless interchange between cultures that occurred in this very region. It is no wonder that this site would be a sacred hot spot for the establishment of what turns out to be a Jewish-Egyptian hybrid called Christianity.

The Book Of Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no Saviour beside me."

Christianity is stolen Kemetic / Egyptian religious philosophy and spirituality, including its rituals and beliefs, remade in an Aryan image. Author and scholar Gerald Massey, once a Christian Priest, began investigating the origins Christianity found the trail leading to the civilization of Kemet / Egypt. As a consequence Massey became a student and investigator of Ancient Kemet / Egypt, and subsequently revealed his findings in four major publications - Books of the Beginnings, The Natural Genesis, Ancient Egypt the Light of the World and The Lectures.

Gerald Massey over the course of twenty or so years presented facts proving Christianity was fabricated upon what was stolen from Kemet / Egypt; and that Christianity was in no respect original or from any god. Ancient Egypt the Light of the World is the comparative list Massey compiled demonstrating that Christianity is a plagiarized fabrication from its Kemetic / Egyptian origins. The list is eight pages in length. If you haven't read these publications of Gerald Massey to learn the truth about Kemet / Egypt and its impact on the fabrication of Christianity for yourself then you can't deny any of it. Reading the Bible and letting someone tell you what it means is not what we are referring to. You don't know what any of it means because you have never read any scholarly work on the subject.

The trinity was a major preoccupation of Egyptian theologians. Three gods are combined and treated as a single being, addressed in the singular. In this way the spiritual force of Egyptian religion shows a direct link with Christian theology.

Ancient Egyptian texts, including the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi, remain virtually intact. The Egyptian texts date back at least three thousand years, and some to the Old Kingdom and even earlier. They predate the Dead Sea Scrolls by a minimum of one thousand years. It is true that some of these have been defaced, but only by the Priests of Amen who were trying to remove any trace of Akhenaten, the religion of the Hyksos Pharaohs, and the Hebrew God, Aten who in Greek became Adhon or Adonis. Fortunately thousands of the missing stones bearing texts from the days of Akhenaten have been recovered, painstakingly identified and put back into their original order, so that they can be read once more.

The message from Ancient Egypt is therefore practically intact. We can easily see where the Bible stories originated, and with that knowledge we can unravel the Bible mysteries, and see where The Book was born, and what was the true meaning behind the Mysteries.

We are giving you answers about your dogmatic beliefs, and like anyone who wants to continue to believe something that isn't true you are in denial. You reject any actual proof of the origin of your religion. The bible isn't true, it is a book of rehashed myths. Your arguments for your dogmatic belief is that your daddy is a preacher and you grew up being told what to believe, and that is no surprise to anyone. Your uninformed upbringing is where your knowledge of religion came from and you are incapable of grasping what anyone is telling you about where your religion came from. You simply can not face facts.

It is obvious that you are not even close to what you should be writing like at 14-years-old, and you can not teach people who are far better educated than you are. All you can do is learn from them, but you are not capable of that. That's because the only way to continue superstitious beliefs is to limit the person's access to information and education. Pseudoscience is not a valid educational choice. I don't know how many ignorant people will be left for you to preach to, but If I were you, I wouldn't count on all that many.

You're a perfect example of a quote by Christopher Hitchens - "the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep."


what the heck are you saying you jumped from moses to jesus in a matter of a couple sentences. i told why dont you look up josephes. why dont you look him up and then argue with me when you look him up. again you dont answers any of my questions. if we are having a discussion then you should answer back to what i say.

god bless

What are "josephes" supposed to be. You are far too ignorant an uneducated to understand even what was written in the post you incapable of disputing, and you are far too dishonest to admit that.


josephes was a 1st century historian. like i said before. its not my fault you dont read my posts but instead insult me. so please search him up instead of insulting me.

god bless


It's not a matter of not reading what you post; it is trying to figure out what you are misspelling. I can only guess at what you mean by "josephes was a 1st century historian." Is it Josephus Flavius?

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, Josephus' birth in 37 AD, well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account, and Scholars determined long ago that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus were added on after Josephus death. Moreover, like the first gospels written long after the alleged death of Jesus, even if it were not forgery the information could only serve as hearsay. Most scholars, even the Christian ones, acknowledge the fact that the "Jesus" section of Josephus' writings is fraudulent, added well after Josephus' death. There's very solid reasoning and objective evidence to support this claim. Although, no scholar believes the Testimonium Flavianum was anything but a forgery of Eusebius, who was desperate to prove the claims of Jesus divinity and Christianity, it has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery. The Jesus testimony is considered by most scholars including the Encyclopedia Britannica's scholars as "an insertion by later Christian copyists".

Eusebius served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop, and he had great influence in the early Church. Eusebius openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius forgery (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus' Jesus. Eusebius not Josephus was responsible for those writings. Eusebius wrote about "how it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived".

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: "We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides". Considering what we know about the early Church's intolerant and biased position these so-called historical writings that supports the Church are not reliable evidence.

Josephus was a Pharisee (a Jew). Only a Christian would call Jesus the Christ. Josephus would have had to renounce his pharisaical beliefs to say Jesus was the Christ. Josephus died a Pharisee.

Not once does Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or Origen ever refer to Josephus' Jesus testimony. We know Origen read Josephus because Origen's writings criticize Josephus for attributing the destruction of Jerusalem to the killing of James. The church fathers made no reference to Josephus' alleged Jesus testimony because it was not in Josephus' writing.

There are no actual Roman records (from the actual time period) of a Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Historians know that there are no writings by anyone that were written at the time of the events that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus were written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from unknown authors, people who never knew Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Many writings about Jesus are forgery or the retelling of myths. The information and dates of these (so-called) historical writings show they could not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because they all came from hearsay accounts. Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge. None of these historians' scant writings about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses; therefore all we have remains as hearsay, and even the New Testament writings came from Paul's vision well after the alleged death of Jesus and unknown authors. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are anonymous documents and Paul was not an eyewitness.


i never said for you to search up josephus and see what evidence he had the jesus lived. im saying to see his work that he did on moses and all the other bible characters such as davis, joseph, and jacob. search what he figured out on them.

i want you to see this website so you can see that josephus did write about jesus.

and now i want you to see this website so i can show you what work josephus did on jewish history and bible characters.

i hope you see these websites and figure out that josephus did have proof of jesus and jewish history.

god bless

The story of Joseph in Egypt was taken from the Egyptian story of Imhotep of Egypt and 'The Tale of the Two Brothers.' Where some of Joseph story was copied about a Magical tale of the Two Brothers. When Famine struck Egypt for seven years during the time of King Djoser, the Situation was saved by the famous Vizier Imhotep, later defied as son of God in 2600 B.C. One hundred years before the god of the bible even created earth.

Josephus is retelling ancient myths not writing history. Few modern scholars, historians or archaeologists would confuse the Moses myth with history. The story of Moses states that because the Egyptian ruler ordered Hebrew babies to be drowned in the Nile Moses was placed in a reed basket and set adrift in a river. He was later rescued by a daughter of royalty and raised by her as a prince. This story was taken from other earlier myths from around 2250 BCE. Sargon was born, placed in a reed basket for the same reason and set adrift in a river. He was rescued and raised by Aki, a royal midwife. Moses was known as the lawgiver the (10 commandments) however the idea of a law given from god to a prophet upon a mountain is also very old. They were not new codes of conduct invented for the Israelites, but were simply newly stated versions of the ritual confessions of the pharaohs. For example, the confession 'I have not killed' was transposed to the decree Thou shalt not kill; 'I have not stolen' became Thou shalt not steal; 'I have not told lies' became Thou shalt not bear false witness - and so on. Moses is just another lawgiver along with many other lawgivers in mythological history. In India Manou was the great lawgiver, in Crete Minos was given the laws by Zeus, and in Egypt there was Mises who carried stone tablets and upon them was the laws of god written. Manou, Minos, Mises, Moses. As far as the 10 commandments, they are taken out of the Egyptian book of the Dead. In fact, the Egyptian religion is likely the primary foundational basis for the Judeo Christian Theology. Baptism, Afterlife, Final Judgment, Virgin Birth, Death and Resurrection, Crucifixion, The Ark of the Covenant, Circumcision, Saviors, Holy Communion, Great Floor, Easter, Christmas, Passover and many more are all attributes of Egyptian ideas long predating Christianity and Judaism. The fact is that, although the historical aspects of the Old Testament are treated and taught from a Hebrew standpoint, there was a significant Egyptian impact on the culture, which has been strategically ignored. This comes to light specifically from the time of the Sinai event and proves to be the very reason why the all important book of Jasher was excluded from the canon. The Israelite living in Egypt knew that Jehovah was not the same as Aten (their traditional Adon or Lord), and so they presumed he must be the equivalent of the Great State God of Egypt. It was decided, therefore, to add the name of that State-god to all prayers thereafter, and the name of that god was Amen. To this day, the name of Amen is still recited at the end of prayers. Even the well-known Christian Lord's Prayer (as given in the Gospel of Matthew) was transposed from an Egyptian original which began: 'Amen, Amen, who art in heaven' etc.

Not only were the Ten Commandments drawn from Egyptian ritual, but also so were the Psalms (which are attributed to King David) reworked from Egyptian hymns. Even the Old Testament book of Proverbs - the so-called wise words of Solomon - was translated almost verbatim into Hebrew from the writings of an Egyptian sage called Amenemope. These are now held at the British Museum, and verse after verse of the book of Proverbs can be attributed to this Egyptian original. It has now been discovered that even the writings of Amenemope were extracted from a far older work called The Wisdom of Ptah-hotep, which comes from more than 2000 years before the time of Solomon. In addition to the Book of the Dead and the ancient Wisdom of Ptah-hotep, various other Egyptian texts were used in compiling the Old Testament. These include the Pyramid Texts and the Coffin Texts, from which references to the Egyptian gods were simply transposed to relate to the Hebrew god Jehovah. Judaism was a mixture in the early days a combination of Egyptian, Canaanite and Mesopotamian traditions, with the stories, hymns, prayers and rituals of the various and sundry gods brought together and related to a newly contrived "One God" concept. Ten Commandments originated from ancient Egyptian religion, and the Biblical Jews borrowed the concept from Egypt. Chapter 125 of the Egyptian Book of the Dead (the Papyrus of Ani) includes a list of things to which a man must swear in order to enter the afterlife. These sworn statements are found in the Ten Commandments in their nature and their phrasing. The Book of the Dead has additional requirements, and, of course, doesn't require worship of Yahweh."

The biblical Hebrew giving to Moses of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai occurred in 1491 BCE. some three centuries later than The Book of the Dead was written. So, historians, and scholars have concluded that the Hebrew Scripture's Ten Commandments were based on this earlier document. Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch; scholars and biblical scholars assert that the Pentateuch was written by a group of authors, from diverse locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. Each wrote with the goal of promoting their own religious views. The Creation in Genesis was first taught by the Egyptian priests, that a god created the "original matter" leaving it in a state of chaos. That a god molded it into from and that the breath of a god moved upon the face of the deep. A god created simply by saying "let it be" and that a god created light before the sun existed. These stories came from the Egyptians.

Throughout early Christian history there were many Christs and Christianities. The New Testament texts tell us this. Josephus, the historian tells us this and over two hundred Christian and Christian related texts from the first, second, third and fourth centuries tell us this. The multitude of Christs and Christianities is a simple fact. The development and authenticity of them were points of controversy from there beginnings. Early Christian history is full of forgeries, interpolations and re-editing of documents, and it was the norm. Many texts of the period express doubt about the authenticity of other Christian texts. Many texts contain anachronisms demonstrating that they were produced later than the time of their stated production. There were no consistent or widespread procedures for determining the age or authenticity of documents. Scholars, historians, and other researchers reviewed descriptions of historical figure by Eusebius, Pamphilus of Caesarea and this exposed many reasons to doubt them. Until there is absolute proof of these figure, as well as, Jesus (and there is none) scholars have no reason that anyone has found in terms of real "evidence" that these figures were ever real historical figures, and that is the majority opinion.

Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus is a forgery and most Scholars know this. A writer must show an understanding of the artificial nature of Eusebean History before they can accurately discuss the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus. Scholars have long believed that there is proof that Eusebius was the author of the Testimonium Flavianum, and there are more recent developments in New Testament Studies that confirm this. Many scholars have understood that the obvious forgeries found in Eusebius are not accidents. Creating and presenting fictitious documents and quotes was a procedure often put to use by Eusebius. Scholars know that the phrases and words in the TF reflected language Eusebius often used. For example, the phrases "maker of many miracles," "tribe of Christians," and "until this day" are found throughout Eusebean texts. What this actually proves is that not only did Eusebius write the Testimonium, but also he was a rather inept forger. Unlike good forgers with the ability to copy the language or voice of the works they interpolate, Eusebius's text always sounds like Eusebius. It does not matter if he is quoting a first century Jewish Historian, a second century Christian Philosopher, or a third century group of Christian prisoners in Gaul, the voice is identical and identifiable as Eusebius's. In spite of knowing this, some apologists insist that these narratives remain credible.

Josephus wrote Antiquities circa 90 C.E., approximately 50-60 years after the (alleged) death of Jesus Christ. Even if it were not a forgery this scant paragraph could not be an eyewitness account of Jesus; it could only serve as hearsay. It is even more suspicious that the historian Josephus who wrote extensively about far less important figures would have only written one paragraph about the most important figure in the history of the world, the Messiah. So, it's not "all that and a bag of chips" to begin with.

The original manuscripts of Josephus do not exist. That's right they do not exist! More importantly, we do not have a single extant copy that was not written by Christian scribes many centuries later. The importance of this point should not be made light of, it's real important. If the history of Christian Europe shows us anything it is that the Christian church was willing to do just about anything to promote the prosperity and growth of their religion. People were murdered, books were burned, temples were sacked, and manuscripts were forged. These are the historical facts, and they are indisputable. The Christians had ample opportunity to commit the forgery; Christian scribes wrote all of the existing copies of Josephus.

The Christian church had a very clear motive to commit such forgery; the movement lacked a solid foundation in the historical record that could be used to rebut arguments presented against it by the many detractors of the day. Forging an account and attributing it to Josephus, the major Jewish historian for that time period, would lend enough credibility to the historicity of Jesus Christ to transform Christianity from a movement into a full blown religious phenomenon. The historical record shows us that the Christians were engaged in forgery and the suppression of rival literature during this time period. Josephus was an orthodox Jewish Pharisee; he never converted to Christianity. This fact is even acknowledged in the 2nd century writings of the early Christian apologist Origin.

It is unimaginable that any orthodox Jew wrote the Testimonium Flavianum. Josephus could not have written it. Josephus supposedly claimed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he taught the truth. It is absurd that a Jewish Pharisee was responsible for such remarks. If Jesus was the Messiah why in the hell did Josephus remain an orthodox Jew until the day he died? It simply doesn't make sense. It does make sense that Eusebius who encouraged forgery and lying to promote Christianity wrote it. I have already given you plenty of proof of that.

In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars. These findings are from the work that is done by scholars, and it is not the only forgery. The Codex Sinaiticus does not contain the original pages of Mark because they are forgeries.

It is generally recognized by scholars, Biblical scholars historians and researchers that the Gospels, the source from which what we are told of the life and teachings of Jesus is drawn, are highly unreliable as history. The Gospels make Jesus into Holy Land important gigantic figure, but contemporary historical records that are abundant took little notice of him. This is all the more surprising because James is mentioned in both Christian and non-Christian sources. There are a few stray references to Christ or Chrestus in Roman chronicles, but none to Jesus. And these references reinforce the Qumran texts in suggesting that there was nothing unique about the title Chrestus.

The usage found in the works of all non-Christian authors - Pliny, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius - suggest that the word Christ or Chrestus (from Greek Cristoz meaning messiah) was a generic term applied to members or leaders of a messianic cult which the Dead Sea Scrolls allow us to identify with the Qumranian Zealots; it was not by any means the unique title of Jesus. It certainly cannot be taken to mean the 'surname' of Jesus as many apologist's have done. From this assumption to claim that classical historians knew Jesus, who must therefore be a historical person is to jump to a conclusion on what is at best a circular argument. A few examples should help make this point clear.

The Jewish War broke out in AD 66, and at that time Romans were tolerant in religious matters. The persecution was against the Jews (not the Christians) during the reign of Nero, and was political not religious. It would not be inaccurate to say that it was the Christians who for the first time introduced religious persecution on a large scale which they later went on to attribute to everybody else, while they posed as victims. This is a classic case of blaming the victim

The Nag Hammadi manuscripts do not contain accounts of Jesus' earthly ministry, his passion, and his resurrection. They tend to be discourses on secret knowledge. Gnosticism is older than Christianity, so it cannot be a form of Christianity. Gnostic sects probably existed earlier than the First Century BC. The Gnostics did not "believe" without research and validation. The "Pauline" Christians stymied the Gnostic writings because the Gnostics did not encourage fear and control.

Christianity and Judaism come from the Egyptian's myths. The sun with its life giving and saving qualities was personified as a representative of the unseen creator or god. God's Sun, The light of the world, and the savior of human kind. Horus being the Sun or the Light had an enemy known as Set, and Set was the personification of the darkness or night, and metaphorically speaking every morning Horus will win the battle against Set, while in the evening Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld.

Horus was born on December the 25th of the virgin Isis (Mary). His birth was accompanied by a star in the East which in turn 3 Kings followed to locate and adorn the new born savior. At the age of 12 he was a prodigal child preacher, at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Annab and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. Horus was known by many gestural names such as "The Truth", "The Light", God's anointed son", "the good shepherd", "the Lamb of God" and many others. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days and thus resurrected.

I hope it's not too much to read, but it covers everyting. You might try reading some of the Scholars books on ancient history instead of getting information off the Internet or apologetics.

It really helps when people don't take one sentence out of context and post it as an abstraction.

Here it is not out of context:

jonathan said, "and again athiesm is a belief. you have to base your belief on something but just because you have never seen god that doesnt mean its not there.

A belief has to be based on something that you believe. How can an atheist have a belief based on something that they don't believe? Something that has not been proven to be a fact, like god, is a belief based on nothing. Atheists don't have beliefs. Anything that has not been proven to be a fact is not true. Anything that atheists deem true is based on knowledge not belief. Beliefs are often wrong but a proven fact is a truth.

Gee! I get it, atheist tend to believe things that have been proven to be facts. There is a difference in that and believing on faith.

As Pi said other people said basically the same thing - and yes there is an agenda.

jonathan said, "athiest do not believe in god for what reason? what proof do they have that shows that god does not exhist. and we do have proof that is the bible you have none.

Answer: If the bible is your proof you have a lot to learn. I doubt that you will, but these are the facts. I am an atheist (not an agnostic) because I do not believe that there is any possibility that there is anything supernatural what so ever. I do not believe in any supernatural being - not even maybe. There is no evidence of anything supernatural ever happening. Historically, religion and philosophy have speculated on questions concerning the origin of Earth, the universe, and humankind, and the nature of matter, space and time. These questions have now been successfully answered by science. Each advance in scientific knowledge demonstrates that religion doesn't answer any question about anything; religion got most of the answers wrong. Religion is now trying to back out of answering questions about science gracefully because it can't. Now all of a sudden religion is just a moral compass that exists in another realm, but that doesn't work when you have been telling people that god made everything on creation week. Those who try to say that evolution is consistent with religious belief are lying, it absolutely is not, and DNA would have falsified evolution - instead it confirmed it.

There is no spiritual after life or a soul that lives forever because science is demonstrating that there is no consciousness or mind independent of the brain. When the brain is dead you are dead.

Have you ever heard of a preponderance of evidence? When there is no eyewitness to something then evidence is used to find out what the facts are. There is a huge amount of evidence found in literature that demonstrates that Jesus Christ is a mythological character. The exact same figure can be found in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician and Indian cultures. That is because all of these cultures spread these stories in their travels. Scholars do not think that these stories represent true historical events - they do not accept these stories. The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology (the field of theological study regarding the so called "end times".) Scholars have studied myths and have discerned and outlined a pattern that is repeated throughout history. Whenever an invading culture takes over its predecessors, it either vilifies the preceding deities or makes them into lesser gods, "patriarchs" or, in the case of Christianity, "saints." This process is exemplified in the adoption of the Hindu god Brahma as the Hebrew patriarch Abraham. In Egyptian mythology, Ptah, the Father, is the unseen god-force, and the sun was viewed as Ptah's visible proxy who brings everlasting life to the earth; hence, the (Son of God) is really the (Sun of God.) The name Christ comes from the Hindi word Kris (as in Krishna), which is a name for the sun. The name Jesus Christ was not formally adopted in its present form until after the first Council of Nicea, in 325 C.E. Even the names of places and the names of many other characters in the New Testament can be found to have originated in the Egyptian texts. As an example, in the fable of "Lazarus," the mummy raised from the dead by Jesus, the Christian copyists did not change his name much, "El-Azar-us" being the Egyptian mummy raised from the dead by Horus possibly 1,000 years or more before the Jewish version. Horus's principal enemy - originally Horus's other face or dark aspect - was Set or Sata, from this source comes Satan. Horus struggles with Set in the exact manner that Jesus battles with Satan, with 40 days in the wilderness. This myth represents the triumph of light over dark, or the sun's return. Jerusalem simply means "City of Peace," and the actual city in Israel was named after the holy city of peace in the Egyptian sacred texts that already existed at the time the city was founded.

The Book of Revelation is Egyptian and Zoroastrian. Revelation was not written by any apostle called John during the 1st Century C.E.; it is a very ancient text that dates to the beginning of this era of history, possibly as early as 4,000 years ago. Revelation relates the Mithraic legend of Zarathustra/Zoroaster. Horus's scribe, Aan, whose name has been passed down to us as "John." The word Israel itself probably comes from the combination of three different reigning deities: Isis (Is - the Earth Mother Goddess) revered throughout the ancient world; Ra, ( Is - Ra - the Egyptian sungod) and El ( Is-ra-el the Semitic deity passed down in form as Saturn.) El was one of the earliest names for the god of the ancient Hebrews.

The Egyptian "savior" is actually the sun, which is the "Light of the world that every eye can see." The sun has been viewed consistently throughout history as the savior of mankind for reasons that are obvious. Without the sun, the planet would scarcely last one day. So important was the sun to the ancients that they composed a "Sun Book," or "Helio Biblia," which became the "Holy Bible. "The traveling Egyptian Therapeuts brought the whole story from India to their monasteries in Egypt, where, some time after the commencement of the Roman monarchy, it was transmuted in Christianity." The autographs of our four Gospels were most probably written in Egypt, in the reign of Hadrian.

jonathan said, "if you choose not to believe the truth then thats your case. but as bad of a proof is atleast we base our proof on something. and athiest is knowing that there is no god so that means you must have proof that there is no god so where is it?"

Answer: Following after you kind of logic - I have never met anyone that proved god exists so calling yourself a believer is wrong.

jonathan said, "thats why your always asking people to have proof of god because you havent disproved him."

Answer: I don't think belief in something on faith alone should be the standard for what someone should believe to be true, because if it were nobody would ever have to prove anything is a fact. Why do we believe some things and not believe other things? What difference does it actually make in whether you believe one thing or another if nobody has to prove anything? We should base what we believe is true on what has been proven to be a fact. Nobody believes scientific theories on faith; scientists are required to produce proof that can be tested when they discover something or present a theory. Religious myths and Holy Books do not stand up to any kind of testing. What's important is not what we believe but why we believe it. We can believe that almost anything is true if we look only at the evidence that supports what we already believe, and ignore any evidence that disputes it. Belief or disbelief does not influence facts. So, one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear and uncertainty or is it facts? We fear the unknown because of the lack of knowledge. Agnostics "have no knowledge" of god or gods, so they see no reason to believe. Atheists will tell you that there is plenty of proof that religion is a myth and no proof that there is a god or anything supernatural. I would like to know how you establish or confirm that something is true? Theists are the one's who are making claims, and do carry the burden of proof. In science the burden of proof rests on those making claims. If scientists or scholars cannot provide proof of what they claim it is not validated. No one has proven that the scriptures are the word of God. The validity of miracles, the bible, or the existence of any deity has not been proven. There are many facts or concepts on any given subject, which is why people read more than one book before they decide what the truth is. The fact that some people form opinions with only one source is suspect. It implies that they don't want any arguments from scientists, archeologists or scholars. If the bible is inerrant then the earth is 6000 years old (any archeologist knows that is false.) And an all-knowing god would also know that and would know about evolution (which is a fact.) To prove that something is a fact people have to find information on the subject, (this requires confirmation from many sources) or a consensus of opinion. Looking at all the facts (pro and con) and then making a decision is called "critical thinking", and is the only way to get to the truth. In most instances the truth about "sacred cows" are not found easily or in one place. Finding the facts on any subject necessitates comparing many facts against your own common sense. One considers something to be "possible" based on requirements, or criteria. They use their own best judgment (not hearsay, which provides no proof or good evidence of anything.) Apologists prefer to believe that the bible is true, and that there is really no-good reason to reject any of it. Apologists ignore the merit or accurateness of the bible, which has been established by a set of findings and interpretation from experts in many fields. Is this the way we should find out what the facts are with no accountability?

If you can't validate your source of information (prove it's true) it's not an argument. Many scholars have found through extensive research that miracle-working sons of God, born of a mortal woman were common elements of Pagan religion that preceded Christianity. Mithras had Dionysus, Attis, Osiris, and Orpheus etc. And they were around centuries before Jesus. Heaven, hell, prophecy, sacrifice, baptism, communion, monotheism, the Holy Spirit and immortality can be found in earlier Pagan faiths. They came from ancient Mediterranean culture. When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity the festivals and stories were merged with the traditions of the earlier Roman pagan religion. I will only speak for myself. Atheists do not try to prove anything about something that there is no tangible proof for. There is no proof that god exists. The burden of proof is on the one who makes claims. Those who make claims about god often use the Bible as their proof, which it is not. They have not researched the Bible; they have read the Bible.

The Ugaritic text is the oldest written text ever discovered. Since the discovery of the Ugaritic materials at Ras Shamra, there has been a great deal of comparative work done in order to explicate the relationship between the Canaanite pantheon and cult, and Israelite faith and practice. These comparisons are necessary for interpretation of texts and the customs written of in the Old Testament that were previously not clearly understood. El was the ancestral deity of the Semites. El appears also in Arabia under the expanded form Ilah, who's plural of majesty is the Hebrew Elohim. The names ending in el and in ilah are more numerous in the various Arabic dialects than those in honor of any other deity. Taken as a whole, they are to be considered as survivals, for it has been proved that they were preponderant in ancient Akkadian and in Aramaic. Since the word el corresponds to the word god, it has been rightly concluded that the Semites invoked only El. El was lifted out of obscurity to be used as the name of the eternal, exclusive, unique, all-powerful God of monotheistic religions. This required that El be shorn of his consorts, children, peers, sexuality etc. The first occasion, was when the Israelites identified him with their God YHWH, appropriating a number of Canaanite El's titles or epithets, as part of the process of developing the monotheism of the Torah. Then, much later, under Jewish and Christian influence, Muhammad declared El, under his Arabic designation, Allah, to be the one true God thus founding Islam. Many of the sacrifices mentioned in the Ugaritic texts have names, which are identical to those, described in the book of Leviticus. Ugaritic texts speak of the Burnt Offering, the Whole Burnt Offering, the Trespass Offering, the Offering for Expiation of the Soul; the Wave Offering, the Tribute Offering, the First Fruits Offering, the Peace Offering, and the New Moon Offering. The term "offering without blemish" also appears in the Ugaritic literature. In Carthage, a Phoenician-Canaanite colony near present-day Tunis, he and his consort were the main or only gods to which child sacrifices, which took place on a massive scale, were dedicated. It is clear that Ugaritic and early biblical Hebrew poetry share a common literary tradition.


why dont you look at the bible as a history book instead of a religious book. if you alaign all the prophecies that the old testament has predicted then in the new testament everything happened just the way it was predicted so how does by luck that everything happens like that. and it states in revelations that the disciple john wrote the book revelations

jonathan said, "linda why dont you look at the bible as a history book instead of a religious book.

There is difference in history and myths. Francesco Carotta wrote several books (the thesis) subject "Was Jesus Caesar" was story of the life of Jesus derived from the life of Julius Caesar. Carotta's work was original written in Dutch then translated into English. History is provable - Julius Caesar did become Pontifex Maximus in 63 BC. A title which was passed on, through the Roman emperors, to the popes, the first churches where Caesar is proclaimed God and Augustus the son of God temples - the most prominent one in Rome. 100 years before the supposed birth of Jesus another god-man was born Gaius Julius Caesar. The elapsed time between the wars and Caesar's own writing was a matter of months or at most a few years. In contrast, the elapsed time between the gospel reports and the supposed events that they describe is at least 40 years for Mark and 60-70 years for the other three Gospels. Abelard Reuchlin identified the Piso family as the authors of the New Tesament. One Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesonînus, at Rome, consul in 58 BC; his daughter Calpurnia married Julius Caesar.

jonathan said, if you alaign all the prophecies that the old testament has predicted then in the new testament everything happened just the way it was predicted so how does by luck that everything happens like that. and it states in revelations that the disciple john wrote the book revelations.

The titles, "The Gospel According to Mark", "Matthew", "Luke", or "John" are headings that were added sometime late in the second century. All of the gospels are written in the third person perspective of an omniscient narrator. Luke (not the author) makes it clear that he is writing his account based on other accounts and not on personal testimony. Justin Martyr, who wrote during the 150s CE refers to the gospels as "memoirs of the apostles" and does not name who they were. The available evidence indicates that the gospels were anonymous and stayed that way until sometime between 150 and 180 CE, when someone decided to give them their current titles.

Christian's claim that the New Testament fulfillment of alleged prophecies from the Old Testament provides proof that Christian doctrine is true. These so-called prophecies are not prophecies at all, but just passages taken out of context from the Old Testament and retrofitted to Christian ideology. The two are incompatible and xians have no idea what Judaism is.

We have no basis to assume that all the events described in the Bible ever occurred in actual history. Nobody has any reason to take it for granted that they all took place. No historian who is religiously unbiased takes the Bible as a book of historical facts. In fact, they generally state that the Bible, especially the Four Gospels, were written with an agenda to preach or convert masses, and not as an accurate historical account.

The Old Testament prophecies claimed by New Testament writers to be prophecies of Jesus, were not even meant as messianic prophecies in the first place. For example, in Matthew 27:35, it says "And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, "They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." That verse is referring to Psalm 22:18. The writer of Psalm 22:18 David, was singing a psalm as a plea of help from God for injustices done to him (David) and not predicting what would happen in the future to the messiah.

Messiah according to the original Jewish definition is not the title 'Christ' it was distorted by the Catholic Church to justify the pagan doctrine of incarnation, which later developed into the trinity. According to history, the Council of Nicea deified Jesus and changed his status. Those who refused to believe Jesus was divine were persecuted by the Pauline Church to accept the divinity of Christ. The Nazarenes never accepted the teachings and writings of Paul. In fact, they looked upon Paul as an apostate who was not of pure Jewish blood. The Hebrew scriptures of the Jews were destroyed and burned to ashes. The Arian revolution was over the divinity of Jesus, but the Catholic Church based in Rome prevailed.

This shift of emphasis from Jesus as a man to the new image of Christ, who was divine, enabled the intellectuals in Greece and Rome to assimilate into their own philosophy with what Paul and those who followed him were preaching. Their view was a three-way god, the Pauline Church's introduced God the Father the Son of God and the Holy Ghost to have a Trinity which matched theirs. Paul's use of the term 'Christ' (the Greek term for the Hebrew 'Messiah') as a divine title has no prior instance in Judaism, and would be felt by any Jew to be a complete departure from Jewish thinking about the Messiah. Further, the idea of 'being in Christ', which occurs frequently in Paul's letters, is entirely without parallel in Jewish literature, whether of the Pharisees or of any other sects.

The Gospel of Paul is one of "Jesus dying for sins" and "rising three days later" was added later by pagan influence. Paul's letters, the later Epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, and even Acts have nothing to do with Jewish teachings.

For over three hundred years the rulers of the Roman Empire worshipped the god Mithras. In Rome, a series of Mithraic temples situated in all parts of the city have been found. One of the largest Mithraic temples built in Italy now lies under the present site of the Church of St. Clemente, near the Colosseum in Rome. The faithful referred to Mithras 4000 years ago as "the Light of the World", symbol of truth, justice, and loyalty. He was mediator between heaven and earth and was a member of a Holy Trinity. Mithras was born of a virgin given the title 'Mother of God'. The God remained celibate throughout his life. Purification through a ritualistic baptism was required of the faithful, who also took part in a ceremony in which they drank wine and ate bread to symbolize the body and blood of the God. Sundays were held sacred, and the birth of the God was celebrated annually on December the 25th. After the earthly mission of this God had been accomplished, he took part in a "Last Supper" with his companions before ascending to heaven.

linda where do you get your facts from. 99.6 percent of everything is true in the new testament. so there goes your theory

don i cant prove to you that there is a god but i cant disprove it. but i do know who can prove it to you which is a guy named ravi zacharias. what happens if there is a god even though there is no proof then that means that athiesm does not exhist. so until you tell me how you have to the knowledge that there is no god you are an agnostic

and what do you mean by we dont have the same god?

I might refer you to the FAQ page here, which could give you a better understanding of what atheism is:

Every atheist I have met has been an agnostic atheist.

You are right though, it is irrational to state that you have proof of a negative. It doesn't make any logical sense. However, atheism is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, not a statement that no gods exist. It is a subtle distinction, but is it is important to understanding what atheism is about.

I cannot prove that gods do not exist. I also cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, aliens, or unicorns do not exist either, but there is no good evidence that any of these beings exist, so I would have to say that I do not believe they exist.

Brian C said, "Every atheist I have met has been an agnostic atheist."

I've never met anyone who was an agnostic atheist. They are not the same things. If asked is there a god - an atheist will simply say, "no". There's no proof of there ever having been a god. Not now or at any time in the history of the world.

The agnostic who thinks that there's not sufficient proof of the non-existence of the earthly gods will be unsure. The agnostic may think the belief in gods that various people have believed in and still believe in on Earth are suspect, but doesn't exclude the possibility that there is a god out there. The agnostic thinks that there's not sufficient proof of the non-existence of the earthly gods. They are not atheists.

Brian C said, "You are right though, it is irrational to state that you have proof of a negative. It doesn't make any logical sense."

Among professional logicians NONE of them think, "you can't prove a negative." You can prove a negative. Yes, you can "prove" a negative. It's from deductive logic. True statements cannot have false consequences. It is the law of non-contradiction. This law states that a proposition cannot be both true and not true. Nothing is both true and false. You can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the empty set using provably valid rules of inference. One of the laws of logic is a provable negative. Pretty much anything you can claim to know is based on induction. Anything we can prove about reality is based on induction - any proof of the existence of the sun depends on our assumption that reality works like it seems to. If you try to throw out induction, you can't know anything at all. This is inarguable. It's intrinsic to logic.

You can use any proven positive to prove a negative. For instance, say I could prove I am alive. I could also say that I am not (not) alive. Double negative, but still a proven negative. At some point we must accept that some evidences are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence beyond reasonable doubt amounts to proof. "You can't prove a negative" is a adage about tests, not proofs. Mathematically, one can prove a negative statement through the most basic math: 2 - 3 = -1 To a mathematician, "proofs" are not restricted to mere "tests". Arguably, in the above adage, the very word "negative" lacks clear meaning as well (since most statements could be cast in either "positive" or "negative" forms). The first sentence below is (positive) and the second one is (negative.) A square can be the sum of two nonzero squares. A cube cannot be the sum of two nonzero cubes. Both of those statements happen to be true in the realm of integers. The first one can be "proved" merely by giving an example (the most popular of is 25 = 16+9). On the other hand, the second statement tells that counterexamples do not exist. That assertion can only be supported by reasoning, since a lack of solutions can never be demonstrated by many failed attempts.

Brian C said, "However, atheism is a rejection of the claim that gods exist, not a statement that no gods exist."

No, atheist is an assertion that no god/gods exist. It is not possible to be an atheist and an agnostic. Atheist makes the claim that no god/gods exist, a claim of knowledge that violates agnosticism's proposition that knowledge of god/s is impossible.

Brian C said, "It is a subtle distinction, but is it is important to understanding what atheism is about."

Steven D. Hales says "you can prove a negative" and that skeptic need not concede this point in debates. Steven Hales is Professor of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University. He received his Ph.D. from Brown University and specializes in metaphysics and epistemology.

I agree it is important to understand what atheism is about. Most of the things you are saying is not what atheism is about. Atheists do not believe in god/gods and "you can prove a negative."

Thank you Dylan. I found Dr Hales' essay on this and I'll have to give it a read when I get the chance. I agree that for practical purposes, that you can prove a negative, but when I say that you can't prove a negative, I meant it in the way that you can't make a neccessarilly true claim like you can in mathematics. This may seem silly, since it can be proven without a reasonable doubt. I will have to think about this more.

You claim that most things that we claim to know are based on induction, but inductive reasoning doesn't lead to a provable conclusion does it? I thought that inductive reasoning led to a conclusion that is most likely true, and deductive reasoning leads to a conclusion that is neccessarilly true, like 2+2=4.

There is a basic understanding of logic and reasoning in every discipline. Mathematical proof establishes that something is inherent in the meaning of something else, and therefore the conclusion is necessarily true. This is the same kind of proof used in the scientific sense and in the sense used in everyday life. The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. Without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with.

The theists default position "you can't prove a negative" or "you can't prove there is no god" is used when asked for proof of their claims. If the atheists point out the absurdity of this claim they are accused of not being "tolerant" towards theists. It is by constructing possible models of phenomena (a hypothesis), and then testing them (falsification), that we advance and build on the knowledge that we already have. By doing so, we prove many negatives along the way. A person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. The theist claim that there is a god, is an assertion without objective evidence, and is not the same as the claim you can't prove a negative, but even if it was it's invalid, because you can prove a negative. The inability to invalidate a hypothesis does not prove it true. Claims that cannot be tested, and assertions that can't be falsified, are useless and should be considered false. If a belief cannot be falsified in any way whatsoever, then what does it mean? The theory of "god" is unfalsifiable, and that makes it meaningless, and therefore disproved because of its inability to fulfill the smallest burden of proof. Within the limits of our knowing anything at all, and given a full understanding of what a proposition means, we can easily prove a negative. Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of god is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical.

Sorry Dylan, after reading Hales' opinion, I must say that I agree with every point that he makes, but I still don't agree that you can absolutely prove a negative. I would state that I believe there are no gods, just as I would state that if I dropped my pen to the ground, it would fall and hit the floor. It would be consistent with all the knowledge that I have about our observable universe. However, I can't say absolutely that the pen will fall. There may be a magnet that I have not considered that will attract the pen to the ceiling, or the laws of gravity may not be constant throughout all of the universe, and the pen would float in the air. Of course, I accept that it would fall since the laws of gravity have not been shown to be inconsistent, and I went into my attic last week and observed no giant magnets. This is the same way that I claim that no gods exist.

I do not accept that mathematical proof is the same kind of proof used in everyday life. This is simply not true. We make inferences every day based on past experiences and current knowledge, but not all decisions based on this are necessarily true. You also assert something that does not seem to follow. You say that there must be some kind of basis, either in substance or though for an assertion, then go on to say that you must have evidence (substance) in order to accept a proposition. What about things that have basis in thought and follow the laws of logic? I would not accept a proposition without physical evidence, but that is because I accept that the universe as we observe it is reality and any reality beyond our universe would be able to be observed.

Theists (mostly) do not accept this. They would claim a reality beyond what is observed (heaven, hell, God, etc). Unfortunately, this belief seems necessary and basic, much like believing that I am not living within my own dream and that I am not a brain in a vat that does not experience true reality. By definition, you would not be able to disprove that a reality exists beyond what we can observe with evidence, because this evidence would come from observations. This does not make their claim valid or worthy of acceptance, but I cannot honestly claim absolutely that it is not true.

I find your claim that you can prove a negative using double negation a bit absurd. There you are simply playing semantics. I would also disagree that the person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. I would say that the person rejecting the assertion needs to provide a reason for rejecting the assertion. They need not provide evidence if this is what you mean, but a meaningful dialog cannot be achieved unless both sides provide their reasoning both for acceptance and rejection.

I would agree with you if you were talking about scientific knowledge or inductive logic, but you seem to imply that you can absolutely make the claim that no gods exist, and I would have to reject that assertion. Every theist would reject it due to the implicit assertion that the universe is reality as it is observed and there is nothing beyond what we cannot observe. In a debate, you can accept that you cannot absolutely disprove the existence of god and still show that the theistic assertion is falsifiable and not worthy of acceptance. Otherwise, you will debate about epistemology instead of the existence of god.

What you wrote was so far off the mark that it would be difficult to give a coherent answer. What Dylan was trying to convey is that you could prove a negative in more ways than one. He was also demonstrating that you couldn't apply logic to something that is not logical. The foundation of mathematics is the study of the most basic concepts and logical structure. The question behind the vast philosophical field of "epistemology" is how do we know what we know? There is a remarkable degree of truth in math; no proof is ever "invented" in math, just discovered. He used several logical concepts to prove that a claim without evidence should be considered false. It's like Carl Sagan's dragon living in his garage. He says, "I have an invisible dragon living in my garage." You say, "show me." He opens the garage and nothing is there. You say, "nothing is there. He says, "I forgot to tell you it's invisible." You say, "lets spray paint on it." He says, "it won't hold paint it's incorporeal." You say, "lets put flour on the floor to see its' footprints." He says, "it floats." There is no way to test the claim. Just like the god claim, logic can't be applied to it. When someone applies logic to a foolish claim it becomes obvious that the claim is foolish, not the person pointing it out. After Carl Sagan tells the story of the invisible dragon living in his garage he asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

Jonathan claim (atheist do not exist) I'm not (not) alive = I'm alive. I exist and I'm an atheist, jonathan got that wrong too, and I think it was a joke.

Before Leibniz and Newton discovered calculus, the calculus was already true those who laid the groundwork for them were exploring the exact same truth, and calculus would be the exact same truth if someone else discovered it. The reason someone can't imagine applying logic to the (god hypothesis) is because theologians never do it. The god hypothesis is exactly like the dragon in the garage.

You were wrong, we can prove a negative in more ways than one, but nobody can prove that Carl Sagan didn't have an invisible dragon living in his garage.

Hello Pi,

I thought about this some more last night and I think that I was just misunderstanding what you and Dylan were saying. I would accept that you can prove some negatives. You can prove that a table is not white by observing that it's color is black. However, unprovable claims like Sagan's dragon cannot be proven false, since the definition is shifting. If a claim were made about it's physical characteristics and it didn't appear, then you can say that the type of dragon claimed doesn't exist. However, other claims, like some peoples' idea of god, are by definition unverifiable. This is enough to reject a claim by our everyday acceptance of claims, but since you cannot test it, it cannot be disproven either.

Another way to look at this is if there is an alternate universe in another dimension. Assuming that we can only observe what is in the three dimensions we know, and that universe is in another dimension, then there is no way to observe the alternate universe. Just because we can't observe it doesn't mean it can't exist, but we are justified in rejecting the claim since we have, by definition, no evidence for it's existence. For us, the difference between a non-existant universe and a non-observable universe is none, but that doesn't mean that the universe does not exist.

Sorry, I think I got off on a bit of a tangent there.

I think I will let Linda answer this since she knows more about science than I do.


If there is no proof of a claim (negative) then the claim is false. Yes, that is enough to say it's false. There is no point in arguing about opinion verses knowledge acquired through evidence. The Nobel Prize of the Swedish Royal Academy demands that an award-winning discovery must be supported by verifiable experimental or observational evidence. The description of a truly reliable scientific theory is that it is thoroughly testable. Proof of anything historic, scientific or philosophical is that it's logical and testable.

Dimensions of time say nothing about god's existence. Extra dimensions, while difficult to visualize, are actually a very simple mathematical concept. You could just as easily have god in three dimensions as ten. The past, present or future, and you could have him running from past to the future, just so you can't find him. Some Apologists have tried to seize Quantum theory to prove that god exists. There is just no point in matching a complex theory to nonbeings. What is the topology of God's extra dimension? God cannot have created Time - in order for time to be created it must be finite, and god would have had to create time before there was time, which is not possible. Therefore, God did not create such things as the dimensions of the Universe, major physical constants and the mass/energy sum total. If God created the universe, then God existed before the universe, and if god created everything who created god.

Multiverse theory involves complex mathematical extrapolation. Stanford cosmologist Andre Linde, perhaps the best-known contributor to multiverse theory, says that his work "allows you not to have to beg for the help of religion." He was among the team of Moscow scientists developing "chaotic inflation theory" in the 1980s, which posits that parts of the cosmos are constantly budding off, undergoing big bangs of their own, and developing into universes with varying laws of physics. Linde began his research to resolve lingering questions about the big bang. The idea in itself is far from new; philosophers have exhaustively considered this eventuality. The Multiverse theory does not presume the existence of any supernatural physics, but the God theory does. In fact, there is no physics involved in the God theory at all. No matter how much wishful thinking "god theories" are not science. Some scientists believe that the multiverse would exclude a Supernatural Creator. It's Supernatural Creator or parallel worlds?" However, there are powerful reasons to believe that the universe may also be a consequence of random mutation. This idea is very firmly established in the mainstream physics and cosmology literature. According to String Theory the tiniest dimensions of space are curled up and twisted into an analog of the Double Helix. The Double Helix is a frame on which base pairs can be arranged. The pattern of base pairs determines the properties of a given biological entity.

Microscopic space (according to String Theory) is not a Double Helix, but something similar: a Calabi Yau manifold. The analogs of the base pairs of DNA are called "fluxes." There exists an incredibly rich set of possibilities; you can call them blueprints for the construction of a universe. And according to modern cosmological theory, the universe is filled with sub-universes of every allowable kind, formed from a process similar to random mutation.

If quantum physics required us to abandon the distinctions between information, reality, and irrationality then nothing would make sense, but it doesn't. I think that we are nearing the end of that time - it's going to become increasingly more difficult for games to be played any longer. The LHC experiments will assist in our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature and the universe.

This is just what happens when apologists who have no understanding of the reasoning involved in a theory try to talk about physics or scientific theory. They create their own reality they are more satisfied with; science discovers what is really there. Science can study reality, and answer questions, and that's what will determine our future.

I'm not interested in theories filched from science used to look for Goldie Locks trail of breadcrumbs or flypaper discussions.

Dylan said: "No, atheist is an assertion that no god/gods exist. It is not possible to be an atheist and an agnostic. Atheist makes the claim that no god/gods exist, a claim of knowledge that violates agnosticism's proposition that knowledge of god/s is impossible."

Dylan, you need to be much more careful with checking definitions before you post statements like this. That's especially true since Matt did a lecture on this very subject a few months back.

Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. Knowledge is a subset of belief. You don't need absolute knowledge of a claim to disbelieve it. Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve.

Atheism is a simple rejection of the claim that a god or gods exist. Nothing else is required to be an atheist other than to state "I don't believe a god exists."

Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge about whether a god exists, or in some cases, that such knowledge is unobtainable. In either case, the agnostic would say "I don't know whether or not a god exists."

In my case, I don't *know* whether or not a god exists, but I don't *believe* that one does. That would make me an agnostic atheist. I would also say that I *believe* that no gods exist, a position usually defined as strong atheism.

For the record, most of the people I've met in the ACA have defined themselves as agnostic atheists. It's not only possible, it's quite common among those who understand the definitions of the terms. Perhaps you're the one who needs to understand a little more of what atheism is about.

About the comment on the topic of "you can't prove a negative" I said, "The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true." That had nothing to do with the difference between atheist and agnostic. Everyone that I know (I am not from here) makes a distinction, and I am involved in a huge group with secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers. It is simply a matter of courtesy not to assume anyone's title, since there are those who do not claim to have the same positions. I decide what I think, based on what I decide, after I study it. Atheists form their own opinions and are free to state them, and others can do the same.

There are many words in the English language that have over time assumed an interchangeable role despite the fact that they are different. The word atheism is derived from the Greek prefix, which means without or not, and the Greek word, which means god. The term atheist means one who denies the existence of a God, Gods, or any supreme intelligence. Atheist think that proving the non-existence of the god (or gods) held true by major religions is something not only possible, but logical, and atheists insist that it is possible to disprove the existence of a supreme being of any kind. Some arguments that atheists make use of include Occam Razor, The Problem of Evil, The Freewill Argument, and the Incompatible Properties Argument. The first true atheist, Epicurus (341-270 BCE). Epicurus was a materialist and probably the first philosopher to develop the argument for (atheism) from evil, which basically highlights the logical fallacies inherent in the idea of an omnipotent, yet benevolent God in a world of suffering and evil.

Agnostics, unlike atheists, do not think it is possible to disprove the existence of God logically or empirically. The word agnostic comes from the Greek word meaning knowledge, and therefore the word itself does not necessarily convey belief or disbelief in God, but all modern definitions are used in the context of God and religion. Equally obvious, atheism and agnosticism differ a great deal in the reasons for their equivalent conclusions, with atheists seeing the idea of God itself as a logical impossibility, and agnostics seeing the idea of God as one that is either not supported by the evidence, or impossible to verify or falsify.

The God Delusion - The Poverty of Agnosticism - "Richard Dawkins says that there is nothing wrong with being agnostic in cases where we lack enough evidence one way or the other. Without any evidence, the reasonable thing to do is to not take a position. Unless, according to Dawkins, you are talking about God."

This article - By Eric Angevine - "How To Know the Difference Between Atheist and Agnostic - They Might Sound Like the Same Thing, But They're Not" - is a guide to understanding the difference between these two loaded A-words. 1. An Atheist quite simply believes there is no Supreme Being. 2. Agnostics don't assume. The very word "Agnostic" means "without knowledge." In essence, an Agnostic most frequently believes that the divine is unknowable. This position indicates an absence of faith, certainly, but that runs both ways. An Agnostic does not have certainty that there is a god, but he would never state absolutely that there is not a god, either.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines an atheist as "one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." An agnostic is "one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God" or "one who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

The term "agnostic" originally meant one that believes that gods are inherently unknowable, which says nothing about whether you actually believe he exists or not. An atheist is someone who has made a decision. There is a difference between disbelief in all gods and no belief in God.

Theists often assume atheism to be a "belief". And they claim that atheism is a belief system that also requires "faith" (to believe there is no god). This is an erroneous characterization. A "lack of belief" is not a "world view"; it presupposes no rules, doctrine or dogma. It's merely a lack of belief in a god. Ones' identity or world-view is not tied to what they don't believe in. "Atheism" is "the state, quality, or condition of being without a god or deity". "Atheos" would literally mean "godless", and "atheismos" (atheism) would literally mean "godlessness".

Not believing in God is not the same as believing that there is no God.

A "cult" is a group that has a central figure that everyone worships and believes. I'm a skeptic, and we think that anyone can say anything, but unless they are the "one true god" people don't have to think it's true. Skeptics don't believe "anything" that hasn't been proven.

Disbelief ( is a reaction) it is shocking disagreement without understanding of the reasoning. No belief is fully understanding and just not buying it.

Actually it's the Atheists that say they haven't been seen any evidence for God. Not the Agnostic because they are as bold to claim that the existence of God is unproveable. That is one of their criteria. It is less offensive to Christians to be an Atheist because some are willing to accept new evidence for a god or gods.

Thanks for bringing this up, with that poorly constructed sentence, Devin. If that's your real name, yet another important debate. Yes, atheist love Jesus, they are all god monkey robots. I guess they didn't go to Leysin a school in Switzerland… that's why they don't have your wit and intellect. I'm glad you got another real debate going… I'm going to teach them some creation science…anonymously, yes, but then I'm a coward. I have to get rid of Linda first, because she won't admit she's wrong. I'm going to call it loving a godmonkey.

There is a school named Leysin in Switzerland? I feel I need to clear my name, since many are referring to me and misrepresenting my stance. Seems like my dispute with Linda has empowered others to attack her and the paranoia has disrupted legitimate discussions.

Sorry Linda, this is not my doing, I sense that the cowardly theist has taken my criticism and made them their own. You don't have to admit that you are wrong for anything because I agree with most of what you wrote and when I do have the patience to read your replies, they are very informative. I still object to why you think that to be an atheist, you have to do certain things. You have a habit of generalizing all atheists under one roof and I believe that is not right. Theist are the ones with the "us against them mentality". Please do not turn into what you hate.

The number of people who believe that Oswald did it alone is 1% of the population, and I guess we now know who the one is. Only a Rush Limbaugh ditto head would be influenced by that stupid conspiracy dog and pony show; that's really a cover-up. Just like what you are doing right now. But when it comes to fake conspiracies nobody does it better than the Religious Right. 'The War on Christmas', the 'Left Wing Media Conspiracy'. They deny that the Democratic President and candidates in the 60's were assassinated by a conspiracy but try to get sympathy with fake conspiracies. I really do think they need to make up their minds because most really believe they are just stupid. More than one person is aware that there is more than one writer under the same name, and when someone is making the identical grammar not grammer and spelling mistakes under two names. They know who and what it's about. Go hawk your trash somewhere else. You are all inferior and disgusting. So, don't kid yourself, as always, you are not the victim. So get off your sanctimonious pedestal.

Also, I'm not even mentioning all the times you have interrupted discussions with your insane attacks on Linda.

Yes I did attack Linda and I don't believe I am playing the victim. I lashed out at her because I felt she was criticizing my relationship. After realizing I might have went little nuts and I apologized. But I still get bothered by how Linda would scrutinize someone's writing mistakes and proofreading their comments. As this was done to me, first by Linda and followed by others that seemed to be defending her. I find it unnecessary and used purposely to discredit someone and spoil discussions. So every time an argument came up that used this tactic of discrediting someone for spelling mistakes, I would comment on it. And Linda has used this tactic on other people she has debated with.

Maybe I am bad for jumping into conversations not directed towards me; sorry I am not aware of any ethical rule when posting comments. Only recently, I have noticed that my name is being link to other posters that are feuding with Linda. So I would like to clear the confusion.

Leystin said, "Yes I did attack Linda and I don't believe I am playing the victim. I lashed out at her because I felt she was criticizing my relationship."

I read that thread "Loving a Theist" and you lashed out at her first, and it was long before badweaterhere told Linda that as an atheist she shouldn't have a problem going to church. The name "Linda" was in front of what he said; he was not making a general comment. Linda answered that (with his fake name at the top) and then you answered instead of badweatherhere, and tried to convince someone that it had something to do with your relationship, when it didn't unless you wrote that post. Nobody has to agree with a stupid theist about whether or not atheist should go to church. In fact the remark was an insult to all of the atheists, and several of them said that.

Leysin said, "After realizing I might have went little nuts and I apologized. But I still get bothered by how Linda would scrutinize someone's writing mistakes and proofreading their comments. As this was done to me, first by Linda and followed by others that seemed to be defending her. I find it unnecessary and used purposely to discredit someone and spoil discussions." Linda has no problem discrediting any theist (or anyone else) in a discussion and we know that. That should be "after realizing I might have "gone" a little nuts"- and is an understatement. You continued to trash Linda throughout that thread when other people were insulting you. You were getting her back because she wouldn't admit that she was wrong as you kept on saying. I think anyone can read that and know that there was no debate like that on that thread. It was on another thread. It is none of your business how anyone answers any comments including yours. If you don't like it go elsewhere. Grace some other lucky people with your presence. You went on a rampage first, most theists do think they have the right to preach and call names and never get any payback. That's not rational thinking, and is not going to happen here. We all scrutinize what people say and put up what they said, and you didn't do that on "Loving a Theist" because you were posting things that people did not say. That thread shows someone who is very dishonest in black and white. You started insulting people first and calling names first and for no reason. I posted on "Loving a Theist" where you interrupted a conversation with Linda on "trying to understand" that had been going on for days and started calling someone a theist who was not a theist. He answered you and told you that he had already stated that he was not a theist, and implied that he didn't think that you were a knowledgeable atheist, and you didn't get it because you wrote back. He didn't answer you. I pointed out that on "trying to understand" you said you knew more about the Christian faith than any other. I don't want to hear it again because I read how you know about all kinds of religions because you just have friends in all flavors. We think that the most important one is an atheist, and I do think when someone says atheists shouldn't have a problem going to church that they are trying to force their beliefs on you.

Leysin said, "So every time an argument came up that used this tactic of discrediting someone for spelling mistakes, I would comment on it. And Linda has used this tactic on other people she has debated with."

No, you just interrupted a discussion she was having with Jonathan about faith healers on "What is having a relationship with God" a got your ass kicked by other atheists, Linda didn't answer you. Linda was doing nothing like that in their discussion. You interrupted that discussion to tell everyone that Linda's writing was mundane, and all the reasons that they shouldn't read what she wrote. Was that because she was very effectively debunking the bible and where it all came from? She wasn't correcting anyone's grammar or spelling; she was correcting their fanatical belief in something that they were on this message board trying to proselytize. Anyone can correct anything and that includes repeated spelling and horrible grammar of those theists who think they can insult everyone else like most theists do. You have never contributed anything to this message board that wasn't junk or disruptive, and I agree with everything that was said to you on that thread. I do not blame any of them for pointing out that you are not very smart, and your behavior is devious and abnormal.

Leysin said, "Maybe I am bad for jumping into conversations not directed towards me; sorry I am not aware of any ethical rule when posting comments."

You are interrupting her conversations with theists that she is debunking because you don't want her to do that. You are also interrupting her conversations with people wanting to know about atheism, when nobody ask you anything, and you don't have any answers. I think anyone could figure it out if they tried really hard. You are not commenting on the topics. Yes, there are rules about that. You better figure them out too.

Leysin said, "Only recently, I have noticed that my name is being link to other posters that are feuding with Linda. So I would like to clear the confusion."

Yeah, one of them just tried to start a fight with Don Baker and blamed it on Linda, and she wasn't on the thread. We all have those kinds of problems. And he said Don was rude and wouldn't answer us. Us as in more than one, and on the "The Elements are Encoded in Genesis" the exact same misspelled words and grammar mistakes can be found on "Loving a Theist." And they are not common mistakes. Devin also sounds like a kid that can hardly express himself, and then other posts under that name sounds like an adult. More than one person has noticed all of this.

None of this is new. There was a nut case that used various pseudonym names like "proud Christian" and went after Linda, Tracie, and just about everyone, and they interrupted discussions with insane comments, and spelled exist "exhist." And when she came out with that she was a 12-year-old that just had a baby and was in a home the atheists (all but Linda) let her have it, and Linda told them not to do that. Linda also told G R not to insult theists that were not being insulting, and he was on "Loving a Theist" too saying that Linda criticized him and that she was right. He can come on here and tell you that again himself. He lives in England. So, your characterizations of Linda are totally false.

I think you need to get your mouth off of Linda and your nose in your own business. Nobody is feuding with Linda that hasn't been feuding with atheists here since Linda, Tracie, and Don started answering them.

Atheists don't have to say that they would go to church, and they don't have to respect people who are insulting and ignorant. I don't know what you call respecting a belief, but there are no theists on here that are not trying to insult the atheists to prove that they are wrong, because they don't really have an argument, and they sure can't argue with Linda.

I'm not going to sit back and watch while uneducated scum goes after anyone here and not do anything about it. I'm sure you thought you would get by with all of that misinformation here too, and I am not going to answer anything that you write because it is all just an excuse to try and trash Linda. From what I observed the people who were too dumb to win a debate with Linda did things just like this. Linda hasn't lost any debate so get your facts straight.

You have a symptom of absolutes. "Linda was right and just in one area, so if anything happens in the same area again it must me right and just as well." Making fun of people is a symptom of bigotry. You are biased as in the quote.


Your poor me post belies the "I'm not playing a victim". I think she creamed the faith healers ass even with your disruption 'cause the atheist knew what you were doing. She only proved him wrong she never corrected his incredibly poor spelling or his inadequate writing. Nor did she point out that he didn't prove anything until he said that she didn't, because she did. So, put a cork in it. You have all our empathies, eh, Mr Leysin, in the wrong places.

If you "can't imagine a world without theists, and you wouldn't trade a born again Christian for and atheist, not thanks." And you think "Linda or any other atheist shouldn't have a problem with going to church. 'Cause they can just sit there and pretend that they are somewhere else". She told him she would be somewhere else. If you don't mind if I say so, and even if you do mind, your gabgut should probably find another roost. Linda did beat the faith healer, although he didn't admit it, and even with your disruptive help. She did prove the elements are not encoded in Genesis, and the disciplines did come out of Egypt, and she got some help there from other highly educated atheists who have the latest findings. Not the old out of date crap on the Internet.

Linda is not doing what you are doing here and all over this message board. Nobody has to respect someone who is cussing them out for no reason and saying that they are stupid because they kicked their ass. Now, I am earnestly asking you to …go suck an egg, and suck it hard, and suck it till your head caves in.


I just had to comment because this is all so familiar. I had this kind of crap done to me once. Most of us know the regulars on this board and they don't attack anyone. The fanatics usually attack Tracie, Matt and Don, and they still are doing that. None of the attacks on Linda are from atheists. There is no way that they would be disagreeing with what she is saying here. . It is new for Linda to be getting attacked, because she has been around for a long time and has never been attacked much. If you look around you will find plenty of discussions with Linda and theists who seem surprised at what she was telling them, but all they say is they are going to check it out. You have to be pretty crazy to go into a rampage because someone told you something that you didn't agree with on an atheist message board. By the way I know it is a common for theists to blame the people that they attack. I have had lots of dealing with them. Everything you are saying and doing is very typical of the underhanded and contrived plotting of the righteous against those people they believe is the enemy.

That is someone making fun of the statement atheists believe in God, because the atheists do not sit in the gray area. The atheists say there is no God. The atheists say that if you can't come up with any evidence for what your claim of a supernatural being that exists then I can say it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is not on me; I am not making any claim. The burden of proof is on those who make claims to prove them. I happen to be an atheist. Theists are people who really don't understand atheists. We have all been attacked by theists, and we all expect that to happen, and when we are attacked we know what to do.

I can't see any connection to this and Linda. Do you have anything else on your mind.

Even if you are atheist, which I also consider myself, you still have to respect another people's belief. My parents are Buddhist and I have friends that have other beliefs, but I don't feel I have to constantly tell them that their beliefs are irrational or stupid. I understand if someone is imposing their beliefs on you and I say hit back. But not all theists are out to get you, even if they know your an atheist. And also no more about Linda, I will stay clear from her.

No, Leysin. You do not have to respect any person's beliefs at all. Beliefs are not worthy of respect.

People should be respected. Their beliefs are free game.

Again, respect people, not beliefs.

I never said anything about having to respect anybodies ideas, especially ones that lack in evidences. I agree that beliefs have to earn respect. Could it be possible to respect a person, but condemn their beliefs? Of course it is possible, but it usually involves heated debates and hurt feelings. Yes, respect people, not beliefs.

It seems Devin and Leysin both have a Linda obsession of some kind-you both have ranted about her on threads where she wasn't even the issue. I think it is just bitter grapes because you don't like what she said. She doesn't make any bones about the way she sees Christianity and religious zealots. She never criticized anyone's specific relationship. When she was told that "atheists should be able to sit in church and enjoy it," she said Hell no, I don't-I think this would be the same response many atheists would give. And when someone is telling you how wrong you are about everything but they can't spell simple words, why should anyone ignore that? If you're going to boss someone around, you should at least spell boss correctly. When I made a comment about how my experiences with Christians were not pleasant and friendly, Leysin made a remark about it being too bad I don't fit in with the status quo. I didn't bother responding because Freeatlast already responded with the same thing I would have said-that theists can be very abusive and no one should have to fit in with their "status quo." I think it would be good if people would refrain from personal attacks and discuss actual topics, not how much everyone should hate someone-it's like a bad episode of some stupid reality show where all people do is fight about fighting.

Again, I am staying away from said person and I'll try to reframe from anymore personal attacks, even if I am feeling attacked myself.

And Emily, when I said that I felt sorry that your experience with theist has been awful and my heart goes out to anyone that gets intimidated just because they don't agree with the status quo. It wasn't an attack or me saying "too bad". I was sympathizing with you because I don't think anyone should be made to feel bad for not going along with other people's ideas. But I can see how you might have misinterpreted what I said if you had already founded me disagreeable.

And after re-reading through badweatherhere responds to Linda, I didn't see badweatherhere's comment as commanding that an atheist should go to church and enjoy it. What I got from it was that if an atheist chooses to go to church, it is possible that they can find some kind of enjoy it. Because if you think of a church as just a building or just a place of gathering from what I thought badweatherhere was trying to say, then as an atheist it shouldn't be a big deal. And that is where Linda said she find it wrong for an atheist to participate in such activities. I suppose there are different ways of interpreting what was said. A lot of miscommunication going on and I can fault myself for contributing in the confusion.

Well, nobody can account for what you think about you are being attacked. You are the one that instead of being able to discuss any topic you are interrupting them. You do think people should be intimidated for not agreeing with your ideas. If you can't debate a topic you need to move on, and none of you can. You were not attacked until you starting insulting people. You interrupted a discussion to tell people about Linda and she hadn't corrected the faith healers atrocious grammar or spelling once.

Saying that it is too bad that anyone couldn't deal with the status quo is exactly what it means. It is not a sympathy letter. You would have to be extremely ignorant to think it was. You also have no empathy for any atheist, and that's clear. It's not just Linda that you don't get along with. Everyone corrected you because you insulted everyone that didn't agree with you. Don't insult other people's intelligence while using bad grammar and misspelled words. They probably will point that out every time.

Also, on the 'Elements are Encoded in Genesis' it was Rational Jen who first commented on the atrocious spelling and grammar. I think that was because he was telling us that we should get passed the fact that his theory was wrong and just say his theory was right. We are talking dumb and really spoiled.

I got the exact same impression of your remarks on 'Loving a Theist' as every other atheist reading it did. I did realize how phony the whole thing was. Fundamentalist are treacherous and vicious. You didn't notice how many bad stories there were from the real people. How funny?

You shouldn't have a problem with sitting in a church means you, not everyone else. You can just sit there and pretend that you are somewhere else means you, and you, is the person the remarks were addressed to. That's like telling a Jew that they shouldn't have a problem eating pork, or making any other socially unacceptable remark.

Nobody on that thread had a good relationships with theists, nobody. None of us wanted to go to church to make someone else happy either. Didn't you notice that? Maybe you didn't notice because you really put that up for another reason. You changed your story about your relationship right there on that thread. You're first description of it was a very disfunctional relationship. Most atheists marry people that think the way they do, and if they don't it doesn't work out, but I think that you are with people who think the way you do. I don't think there is a problem.

Atheists do not conform to what theist want them to do. There is a reason why you don't have the same kind of understanding about things as atheists do. I think you thought that other atheists would say that they agree with you, and that's because you don't know anything about atheists, and there truly is no understanding.

^^Rational Atheist,

Why are you making comments to me? Am I not addressing Emily since I thought it was me that she was talk to? I get blamed for jumping into conversation that is not addressed to me, so how are your actions different from what I did? If you personally have a problem with me, it's cool. You don't know me and I don't know you, so it doesn't really matter.

And you bring up "Encoded in Genesis"; I didn't even make any comments on that thread. I have no control over what other people write on other threads and I don't understand what Rational Jen did in "Encoded in Genesis has anything to do with my question on "Loving a Theist". You say that my question was phony, why? The reason I asked the question was because I was frustrated with my girlfriend and her dismissing me about my atheist views. I received some good comments that related to my situation. And at first the discussion was going well until it started going off topic. It started to become a discussion about the persecution of atheist by theist and then personal critiques about who said what and what was said. Then I get accused of being a hypocrite and a dictator and a phony. Go figure.

If I just agreed with everybody that said something and nodded my head, what would be the point of making a thread? I even explained my reason for creating the thread and it was to let some of my frustrations out and for others who can relate to tell their story. I don't believe I insulted anyone until someone made a claim that it was wrong for an atheist to participate in religious activities. I was personally insulted because at some occasions I would go to church or participate in church related activities, mostly for curiosity. So am I wrong for doing so? Should my atheism be in questioned? And when I disagreed with someone about that claim, I get more people, who probably would have had nothing to say, making comments. Not on what I asked on my thread, but making personal attacks because I attacked a much liked person in this forum.

This thread is about "why atheist doesn't exist", so why am I being brought up in the conversation? I didn't say anything. Robertz seem to be insinuating that I was using other pseudonyms. Since I noticed this claim being made in other threads, I thought this would be a good time to clear up the confusion about who is who. Oh well, doesn't seem like anything will be resolved. You have your opinions about me for whatever reason, but I don't believe I've made any extremely personal assaults on you or anyone except for you know who. Please, continue your crude assumptions about me, I find them rather amusing.

Rational Atheist,

Yes, the remarks I read do smack of someone trying to force church on atheists. Even if an atheist had a good relationship with a theist it wouldn't be like the one he described. If it is a successful relationship then both parties have to agree to accept the differences and not try to force their beliefs on the other party. From what I have observed in my experience with most theists, they can't and they don't do that. Atheists are much more likely to leave people alone than a theist is. Atheists don't feel the need to save anyone. If a person really did resent a theist that does not respect their stance then why would it make them mad if an atheist says that they wouldn't go to church to please a theist? If said person does not support the atheist position on this, or most anything, but seems to think that atheists should go-along-to-get-along; I think that you will find that it is doubtful that this is an atheist. Most theists don't understand that atheists are better educated and know more about all religions than most theists. Intelligent well-educated theists do not believe the Bible is true. Many of them do not believe the religion is anything but myths, but they say that they are simply spiritual. The problem with that for me is you can be spiritual without organized religion; so why support it when you clearly do not believe it? Those kinds of theists will usually leave people alone, but there are some that do proselytize even their spirituality. America is getting to be more superstitious and backward while most of the industrialized nations in Europe are passing us by in everything. They have more highly educated population, and most of the people know superstition and magic do nothing for a Nation. I read something recently comparing America's place in the world in education, social programs and religious fanaticism to third world backward uneducated countries.

My BS alarm went off a long time ago on this one anyway.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup