...

You'd be dead because you have no beliefs of course. A man with colorful language such as yourself must surely have the imagination to work out the details from there.

And I have no problem admitting that something is a belief, I fail to see how that is somehow weakens a position. Admitting the basis of a position is important. Sure, it's easier to scream in capital letters and call people names, but I'll leave that to stupid people.

You're also making an error of category. That two things can be classified with the same term does not make them identical. A truck and a formula one car are both vehicles, but they're vastly different in scope. You'd have to be pretty daft to use that as a basis to claim trucks are as fast as formula one cars in general. The same principle holds true for two beliefs.

How amusing. You think that by repeating yourself, you make something more true. (*YOU* might think that, but historians and others who study the culture of the time are not the least bit surprised. And certainly, you have no reason to think that *I* would believe it other than by being grossly misinformed about what I believe.)

Why does it always have to be the biggest idiot that leaves the firs reply?

I repeated myself because such an issue should not go unanswered, IDIOT.

I do not give a **** what you think or believe, IDIOT.

Either post proof (authentic relics) or get the **** out.

Given that you replied to yourself first, you're the one who will have to answer your own question.

I did answer it. There's no reason to expect that people would do this. Only ignorant people who don't know anything about the relevant culture or history would think... oh...

Apparently, you did enough to respond. And now you look even worse than you did before.

Proof that nobody made statues of Jesus in the first century? You've already admitted that this is the reality. As soon as you find one, though, please let me know.

So it's true, there are none?

Why on earth do people still believe this crap then? It's insanely obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Jesus story is a hoax.


(All your other answers are worthless so I just ignored them.)

It is true. First century Jews were not of the habit of making statues of people they thought were important.

Most people use an intellectual framework far deeper than what you've presented, and their decision-making heuristics are not nearly as infantile as yours.

Whole-brained people think more clearly than half-brained people.

Indeed. That's probably because you're among the half-brainers.

I'm not in the habit of making statues either but I'd make a gazillion of them if I met a guy who died and then resurrected a few days later.


Well I guess I'm not smart enough to waste my valuable time for 26.000 posts on an internet forum loooooooo

Evidence of the not-so-subtle arrogant stupidity of assuming that you are the paragon of rational human behavior.

I've made good money from the knowledge I've gained by posting. It was time well spent.

You, on the other hand, keep coming back here and making yourself look dumber and dumber. I suspect you're the one who is increasingly experiencing a form of buyer's remorse for the time you spent posting.

LOL, really? You now play the 5 year old "I Know but I won't tell you"-Game?

I guess answering a direct question is too much for an apologist.

Sure someone with that much knowledge about god and religion should have no problem at all to show some proof for invisible skydaddy?

Oh wait, you actually don't have any knowledge, right? You just chose to "believe" because it eases your crippling fear of death.

I'm not surprised at all. So, again, I believe that religious people are child molesters.

so you admit that you believe in unproven fairytales? Great, that's a start.

Awww, still bashing the capital letters?
Standard tactics here, if you have nothing to attack the argument, attack the poster. Way to go, champ. Jebus is proud of you.

And how is this gibberish relevant?

You seem to be a confused individual. I am not religious and do not believe in "invisible skydaddies", nor have I at any point said that I do.

Still, it IS fairly amusing that someone who has just spent 4 posts loudly crying about "beliefs" has just taken something out of thin air and gone with it. I am certainly curious as to what hand-waving excuse you'll come up with to pretend it doesn't matter.

Also, your unimaginative textbook attempts at provocation are boring, try something original instead of being a poster-boy for indoctrination.

If we include the back and forth with OrP (maybe debatable?) Flicks is 0/3 at calling out deluded believers in this thread. It's good entertainment.

You'd think he would learn after the first two.

It's like sales and speed dating. Every time someone says no, it brings you one step closer to someone who is a yes.

LOL, the apologists trying to make sense of themselves.

Are you even reading what people are writing? Or just spewing in response to whatever strawman is in your head at the time?

I think Judas is in Heaven

There isn't much else to do, attempts of making sense of you failed miserably because there was none to be found.

I mean, I can yell at you for being an orange all day long... it won't make you an orange and it won't be a meaningful environment for discussing biology.

That's a rather odd definition and looking it up resulted in zero results.

Can you provide the source of your definition? Otherwise I have to assume that you made it up and it is therefore useless.

There is no proof for the existence of god. Claims like the above are therefore useless circular ramblings, like all arguments containing bible citations.

Better luck next time, nothing of your post changed the fact that christianity has been a scam from the very beginning.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

At best, your quibble can be that "there is no proof" should be interpreted as a time-dependent claim (there is *currently* no proof) whereas the definition as stated by shuffle is a universal non-existence (it *cannot* be proven). But that would force you to read his definition inconsistently with your own language, because the game can be reversed. ("There is no proof" is the universal, and "cannot be proven" is time-dependent.)

So really, you might want to practice internetting. Or maybe practice Englishing. Because the given definition isn't so bizarre and isn't hard to find.

Wow, I was on merriam webster and oversaw it.

My fault, thank you for correcting me. See, that was not too hard, more than one ever could expect from a rambling theist

Sure, there might be proof of so much in the future, does not change anything right now. Who knows, some day there might be proof that religious people just have good old schizophrenia.

These useless ramblings don't change the fact that no proof has been brought forward in the last 3000 years after a good bunch of people allegedly directly interacted with god and the alleged birth of that guy called jebus.

Show proof or shut up

We're talking about an invented entity which allegedly has created the universe which means: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Ignoring the fact that we found a plausible explanation about the origin of the universe and it shows no involvement of any supernatural beings won't help anyone of you.

Some random guy on the interwebs claiming "There might be proof some day" just doesn't cut it. You need to realize that every religion is making very specific positive claims about a supernatural world and supernatural beings.
Claiming "I believe these stories are correct because others also believe them" is a logical fallacy, but I guess you already knew that given your superior knowledge about, uhhh, absolutely everything

If you or anyone can show me some proof or if the old sadistic skydaddy decides to show his ugly face, I'll fall on my knees and acknowledge that all the religious loonies were right all along.
Until then, I won't and I'll keep assuming you all suffer from severe mental illness.

Yeah, you were right about the definition of faith but still no sign of skydaddy

You should stick to explaining basic math to clueless people in SMP, trying to defend religion with logic makes you look very very desperate and stubborn (Well, just like a common religious guy )

Greetings to Santa Claus, I am sure you meet him on a daily basis to discuss the existence of Bigfoot.


So?
jebus is only a small part of the fairytale. Nobody cares if he was the son of god. It's rather simple: No proof for god -> no need to talk about his son

Beliefs of my own?

Where is this going? "Atheism is just another belief system"? LOL, how poor.

If every religious person would stick to believing in their own home, there would be no problem at all. But obviously, you came in here to defend the idea of invisible skydaddy.
Why did you not think: "Oh well, this Flickstracey guy is full of **** but I just keep believing"?
Instead of just ignoring my post you felt you needed to pick a fight for a supposedly omnipotent being?
Why are you so hilariously arrogant to think that allmighty skydaddy needs you to fight for him? He might be rather pissed right now because you are implying he can't handle matters on his own and needs a schizo to set things straight.

I believe that religious people have severe mental illnesses. Now please don't belittle my beliefs, allright?

Of course you are free to believe whatever you want, but you need to admit that even you will find some beliefs completely senseless.
For example, some people strongly believe that Xenu is/was real. Do you also believe this or does this crash with your skydaddy beliefs? How do you cope with the fact that every religion has a different "model" of how humans came to be

So why are you acting all butthurt when I challenge your belief of invisible skydaddies who mysteriously have been appearing and interacting with humans in worthless holy books but never in reality?
You sure apply lots of logical thoughts in your everyday life so it cannot be that outlandish to question any "Superior, unexplained being created most or all of the matter we see today"-Ideas?

The irony.
Coming from a guy who has nothing more than very very stale "holier than thou" ramblings.

Also thanks for your amateurish psychological examination. Maybe you can include me in your evening prayers so I can see the light some day.

So, same goes to you: Show proof or stop your annoying "I and many others believe in an unproven entity, so my words have more weight than yours"-BS.

The fact that you didn't even have a conceptual understanding of this particular definition of faith, and that you went there, AND that you didn't even see it speaks volumes more than what your rambling does. But I appreciate that you have placed your sheer lack of intellectual depth on display for all to see.

Faith doesn't seem complicated from the position of practice.

Whether it is religious faith or spontaneous expression of facing uncertainty, or intentional acceptance of a value like support, strength, clarity, and love. When where and what can be enough to have faith without how or why.

Is plain faith a scam? Can you have faith and find out or have faith and don't bother?

Errr actually that's exactly what he did, read da Biblol much?

He gave Moses a couple of plates (very nicely carved btw) with instructions how people should behave and that one's right at the top

There's also a talking bush in there somewhere


P.S. I'm also wondering where have all the angels gone? There was a bunch of eyewitnesses 2000 years ago and nearly everyone had his personal angel floating around like a balloon giving awesome advice but these days you can't find them anywhere! Did they get sick of people or are they just camera-shy?

As with any influential figure in history, Jesus's ideas transcend his earthly presence. Lots of smart people like his ideas. You have a brain. Study them and then accept them or don't. Jesus is not going to show up anymore and bop you in the head with the book and say "Wake up, bozo, I told you the Way centuries ago."