Yeah them Christians are the worse at least muhammad existed.

[quote]Do we ever get any theist monkeys on this site? Because I thought the place would be crowded with all those mind drolling worthless un-evolved **********..[/quote]
I believe that's a little uncalled for. I'm not calling you a monkey, nor mind "drolling," nor "worthless," or even a long string of asterisks. Saying stuff like this about your opponents doesn't exactly reflect well on your worldview.

It's interesting that you say "worthless," though, as if you believe humans have an intrinsic value. What basis as an atheist do you have to say that we humans have any worth or purpose?

[quote]All the time.

There's almost as many theists that visit here than atheists. Although this forum doesn't have that many people posting, but hopefully it'll come to life.

And theists are always shoving bullshit down our throats. When they get too dishonest or plagiarize they're banned.[/quote]
I hope you wouldn't consider me to be someone who's shoving anything down your throat. That's not my style.

[quote]Yeah them Christians are the worse at least muhammad existed.[/quote]
I'm sorry Dave, but that's probably the funniest thing I've read all day.

How do you know that Muhammed existed? The [i]exact[/i] same standards used to say that Jesus didn't exist can also be used against Muhammed with about equal validity. So how much evidence is required to establish someone's historicity, Dave?

Please lay out the evidence for Muhammad's existance, followed by Jesus's existence.

[quote=Dave_G]Go to Saudia Arabia and I'll show you his grave. [/quote]

???

But he flew into the sky!

Yes.

[quote]Go to Saudia Arabia and I'll show you his grave.[/quote]
Can you prove that's really Muhammed's grave with any more validity than, say, the Shroud of Turin belonged to Jesus, or that the James Ossuary really belonged to Jesus's brother?

How can you be sure that it's not actually a random body put there as part of an Islamic conspiracy to gain control over the Arabic nations?

[quote=Dave_G]Do we ever get any theist monkeys on this site? [/quote]

I see we have a little teenager who think he's a big shot. *rofl* Now little boy, do you care to take me on Jesus existence on T-web? I'll start a thread for you, if you want.

[quote]Because I thought the place would be crowded with all those mind drolling worthless un-evolved **********..[/quote]

My my my... what a big boy! Now do you have a real argument or will I keep seeing the same cards other atheist pull?

[quote]Ok sanity back so do theist ever come to this site trying to force their worthless beliefs on us?[/quote]

I come to these sites to have some fun. Now when you give a real argument and stop using soundbites that real historians with degrees reject, you can try this again, ok?

Crystal

Edited to add... real mature changing my avatar. Gosh... how sad indeed.

[quote]Eyewitnesses have wrote about him. Show me the eyewitnesses for Jesus and i'll share it with all my atheist friends.[/quote]
The Gospels, at least some of them, are eyewitness accounts. Or at least, they claim to be.

This is ironic, however. The same standards you used to determine that eyewitnesses wrote about Muhammed are the same standards you happen to reject in regard to Jesus.

[quote]No the gospels don't count since they were written around 90 AD[/quote]
Dave, what's your test to determine when a document was written? You give a rather late date for the Gospels that may only be valid in the case of John, so how did you determine such a date? Did you merely swallow what you were told uncritically, as I'm expecting?

Secondly, even if we grant that all of the Gospels were written around 90 AD, why would that make it so they "don't count" as eyewitness accounts? If the authors of the gospels were actually eyewitnesses, an extra twenty years doesn't change the fact.

This is typical of the Christ-myther. You use standards of evidence that actual historians really don't use. No reasonable historian would say that we can't believe in a historical figure because he wasn't written about until a measly fifty or sixty years later. That's very small in comparison to others.

[quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lnFobYlsF4[/quote]
I cannot get on YouTube at the moment...It's blocked at my school. However, knowing your style, I can only imagine that it's a clip of The God Who Wasn't There. When I get home, I'll try to stomach it. I usually try to stick to legitimate historians like N.T. Wright.

[quote]Just the (Ir)rational Response Squad nonsense. I mean...why go from the dating methods from historians like Craig Bloomberg when we have Rook?[/quote]
Because people are always looking for some sort of backing for their worldview, regardless of how off the wall it is.

The easiest way to tell yourself that Christianity is false is to eliminate the founder. It requires no real evidence, and one can believe it very seriously and adamently.

It would be pretty hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

[quote]Eyewitnesses have wrote about him.[/quote]

Technicly all the eyewitness to Muhamad did was collect and write down a bunch of his sermons. Most of what we know about Muhamids life comes from much much later.

[quote=lilangelofterror][quote=P-Dunn]
It would be pretty hilarious if it wasn't so sad.[/quote]

True, funny that fundy atheist accuse Christians of using 'bias sources' even though atheist like Michael Grant and Peter Kirby say Jesus existed... but hey... who cares right? It's so much easier believe silly excuses and simply pound your fist on the ground till your opponent gives up.
[/quote]

So you don't have any real arguements against them? Figures and by the way do you think being all rude and ignorant i what Jesus would do on here (if he had existed) arn't christians supposed to be christ-like? It's nio wonder you people get divorced all the time.

and byt the way you and P are going to Hell just read the Koran.

[quote=Dave_G]So you don't have any real arguements against them? Figures and by the way do you think being all rude and ignorant i what Jesus would do on here (if he had existed) [/quote]

Sure, look at some of the things he said the Pharasies and others who were too stuborn to even try to learn.

[quote]arn't christians supposed to be christ-like? [/quote]

Yes.

[quote]It's nio wonder you people get divorced all the time.[/quote]

Something smells fishy here. Oh wait, its a red-herring.

BTW, do you happen to know [b]why[/b] most Christians get divorced? Because believe it or not there are biblical reasons for divorce.

[quote]and byt the way you and P are going to Hell just read the Koran.[/quote]

Actually no, we're not. You see Muhamad taught that Christians(and Jews) could be saved if they were sincerely seeking God. IT was pagens he saw as hopelessly damned. Too bad Muslim extremists forgot that.

[quote=Dave_G][The only way Christians can get divorced is if the woman fucks another man.[/quote]

Wrong, thats one way a Christian can get divorced. But the Bible also explicitly says divorce is allowable in cases where a non-Christian partner demands it:

[quote]But if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A brother or sister is not bound in such cases. God has called you to peace.[/quote]-1 Corinthians 7:15. [bear in mind that in Biblical times leaving ones partner was effectivly the same as a legal divorce]

Also, although theres nothing explicit in the Bible. Most early chruch leaders agreed that divorce was allowed in cases of abuse and neglect.

Now I ask 3 questions:

1. Why do you care about Chrstian divorce rates?

2. If its so you can scream 'hypocryts' then do you happen to know why we're getting divorced? If its mostly for any of the reasons above(or at least the first two) then theres no hypocracy.

3. Even if some of us are being hypocritical on this issue, does that prove Christainity false? Or does it just prove that some Christians are hypocrits and/or imperfect?

[quote]3:85
Whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter. [/quote]

Dont forget though, that Muhamad believed Jews and Christians followed the same religion he'd been revealed, but that they had misunderstod the message.

[quote=Dave_G]Marrige is supposed to be eternal in the Bible.[/quote]

No it isnt. Jesus taught there would be no marriage in heaven.

[quote]What about when it's not?[/quote]

I'v dealt with taht below. Besides you've yet to show thats not case.

In fact it wouldnt surprise me if #2(the instance of a non-Christian spouse) could apply in most cases. Although I dont really care enough to bother teh check.

[quote]If God existed I'd tell him to go to Hell. Read the Bible he's a murderer.[/quote]

I have, in fact in the last 15 minutes I'v shown you up on what it says 3 times. Now answer teh question.

[quote=American Atheist]Dave, please avoid swearing.[/quote]

I'd also like to add that it really doesnt bother me. If your going for shock value you're going to have to do way better than that.

[quote=Dave_G]So you don't have any real arguements against them?[/quote]

It's called 'scholarship' funny that real historians with degrees would call the Jesus never existed theory total bunk. I don't watch stupid video's with soundbites. Give me an article and I will offer a rebuttal. I did make an idiot of one of the admns on the 'Jesusneverexisted.com' forms. If you want... I'll post the link on theologyweb were I roasted him.

[quote]
Figures and by the way do you think being all rude and ignorant i what Jesus would do on here (if he had existed) arn't christians supposed to be christ-like? It's nio wonder you people get divorced all the time.[/quote]

*rolf* So calling a spade a spade is an issue why? Funny that my grandparents were Christians and were married for over 40 years (until my grandmother died). But hey, strawman are so much easier then real arguments. Tell you what, give me a text version (not some lame video with the same nonsense I've read and rejected on Jesusneverexisted.com) and I'll offer a rebuttal, deal?

[quote]...and byt the way you and P are going to Hell just read the Koran.[/quote]

Are you a Muslim then? No, so see you there then. :wink: You really think that scares me little boy? Now when you can give me something new, we'll try this again, deal?

Crystal

Oh, my bad.

I bet you didn't know but Rook is a historian.

[quote=Dave_G]I bet you didn't know but Rook is a historian.[/quote]

:lol: Too bad that other historians (like Michael Grant, NT Wright, Craig Bloomberg, and Ben Witherington) say that theory is bunk. Hey, who should I believe, the bulk of scholarship or a few fringe ones who most are not even historians? What is Rook's degree in? Ancient history? Does he have a MA or PH-D in ancient or Christian history, like the ones I mention above do?

Crystal

[quote=Dave_G]Yeah them Christians are the worse at least muhammad existed.[/quote]

actually most historians agree that Jesus from the Bible actually did exist. the actual debate is centered around if he was who he claimed to be....yeah, i know i'm a bit late with that comment, sorry 'bout that...

oh...and the generalization about christians being the worst is pretty much as bad as racism. i respect your beliefs, so i'd kinda appreciate a little respect back.

I have only seen one "true" christian on here. And by the way most scientists believe in evolution so you have to believe it to.

[quote]I have only seen one "true" christian on here. And by the way most scientists believe in evolution so you have to believe it to.[/quote]

Disagree, 'true christian' is dumb... anyone who accepts jesus as what the bible says is a christian. And there are a lot of thoes...

And just because 'scientists' believe it in no way influences if it is true or not.... look at the evidence. More people believe in god than dont... does that mean that we have to believe in god? Majority belief is no basis for fact - lets vote on the sex of that cat over there!

[quote=Dave_G]I have only seen one "true" christian on here. And by the way most scientists believe in evolution so you have to believe it to.[/quote]

hahahha, did you research that? although quite a few scientists DO believe it, MOST actually only think of evolution as a possible theory, and not proven fact, and quite a few also reject it altogether because the theory has so many holes in it. i choose not to believe in it, not because of what scientists say, but actually because i've researched both sides and i picked what i thought was more probable. you're entitled to your own opinion on the subject, but if you only follow it because that's what was taught to you and you haven't personally made an effort to find out what it is you're believing in, then you can't really call me a sheep without exhibiting some form of hypocrisy.

(sheep meaning a brainless follower)

[quote=American Atheist]
Incorrect, it's accepted as a fact by scientists.

Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution as a fact.[/quote]

Interesting... I found this over on newadvent.org (a very good Catholic reference):

1. The origin of life is unknown to science.
2. The origin of the main organic types and their principal subdivisions are likewise unknown to science.
3. There is no evidence in favour of an ascending evolution of organic forms.
4 There is no trace of even a merely probable argument in favour of the animal origin of man. The earliest human fossils and the most ancient traces of culture refer to a true Homo sapiens as we know him today.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05655a.htm

Care to try again?

[quote]Published in 1909?[/quote]
Crystal's the kind of person that always criticizes people for using Thomas Paine, too. As such, this is an ownage.

[quote]The Catholic Church accepted evolution as a fact like around the 50's or 60's.[/quote]

??? Care to cite a source?

This would be a cool trivial (for me... not others) fact to know... but I don't believe it...

(But I want to... so convince me!)