He is Risen...

[tonea2003]

Atheists are all experts in the reasons they don't believe in things they don't believe exist.

all believers are experts in the reasons they believe in the things they think they know exists

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Atheists are all experts in the reasons they don't believe in things they don't believe exist.

...whereas the devout are experts in telling the rest of us how we should live our lives,based on a historically inaccurate and contradictory book of infantile Aesop-esque allegories, Chinese whispers,homophobic and misogynistic rhetoric and fairy tales.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Atheists are all experts in the reasons they don't believe in things they don't believe exist.

And are vehemently religious in espousing these views, strangely enough.

Atheists cannot be religious,but then you may well be the one who put the 'moron' in 'oxymoron'.
And when it comes to vehement espousal,we have centuries of catching up with the god squad to do.
The day we start imprisoning torturing,drowning,raping and killing wholesale in the name of a non-existent imaginary friend,such as Torquemada and the Crusades did,then you may just have a nuance of a point

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

And are vehemently religious in espousing these views, strangely enough.

That's a big generalisation. I've had constructive and cordial discussions in this thread with atheists and in person with them too.

If you have had constructive discussions with "atheists" about the post I was replying to then they may very well be agnostic.

This is a bit of a misnomer.

You can be atheist and agnostic, in fact I'm guessing most would say they are (at least when it comes to non-personal gods). The two relate to entirely different things.

Atheist is rejecting the proposition of a belief in a deity due to a lack of evidence.
Agnostic means you do not claim to have absolute knowledge of something.

I make no absolute statement by being an atheist on whether god does or does not exist. In the same way I make no statement on whether unicorns do or do not exist. I am simply saying there is not sufficient evidence to prove that they exist.

It's like the court system in this country. If somebody receives a 'not guilty' verdict then this doesn't mean that they're 'innocent'. It just means there isn't enough evidence to convict them as 'guilty'.

Atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive definitions.

 

[BluePurgatory]

There is no concrete scientific or literary proof that Jesus existed!
Wasn't the first mention of Jesus decades after his supposed death?

The problem with affirming a faith using a "Good book" as an historical document is flawed from the outset.

He was mentioned by the Ancient Historians some of whom were not Christians.

 

[dazdon]

Can you provide evidence of this ?

 

[BluePurgatory]

Can you provide evidence of this ?

Google the Historicity of Jesus or the names of these ancient historians:-

1. Babylonia Talmud
2. Lucian
3. Joesphus
4. Pliny the Younger
5. Tachus

 

[tonea2003]

Can you provide evidence of this ?

Google the Historicity of Jesus or the names of these ancient historians:-

1. Babylonia Talmud
2. Lucian
3. Joesphus
4. Pliny the Younger
5. Tachus

none of this prove he was a son of a deity

 

[BluePurgatory]

Can you provide evidence of this ?

Google the Historicity of Jesus or the names of these ancient historians:-

1. Babylonia Talmud
2. Lucian
3. Joesphus
4. Pliny the Younger
5. Tachus

none of this prove he was a son of a deity

The above is in answer to proof that Jesus existed not God.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Google the Historicity of Jesus or the names of these ancient historians:-

1. Babylonia Talmud
2. Lucian
3. Joesphus
4. Pliny the Younger
5. Tachus

none of this prove he was a son of a deity

The above is in answer to proof that Jesus existed not God.

Even I tend to believe that Jesus existed,and I'm as atheist as they come.
Although I do have serious reservations regarding the virgin birth.