The Problem with NonTheists and Facts

[WinePusher]

Fact: The universe began to exist out of nothing

---The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. Source
---As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other. Source
---The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something. Source

Fact: The universe is fine tuned for life

---The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. Source
---It is this extraordinary instance of apparent fine tuning, and others, which has brought the worlds most respected cosmologists, including Leonard Susskind, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, & Andrei Linde, to recognize not only the legitimacy of the phenomenon, but the necessity to explain it. Source

Fact: Jesus was a historical figure and the New Testament relays semi-reliable information about him

---With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it......Whether we like it or not, Jesus certainly existed. Source

Fact: The tomb Jesus was buried in after his crucifixion and death was found empty

---The stolen body hypothesis posits that the body of Jesus Christ was stolen from his burial place. His tomb was found empty not because he was resurrected, but because the body had been hidden somewhere else by the apostles or unknown persons. Source
---An examination of both Pauline and gospel material leads to eight lines of evidence in support of the conclusion that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty: (1) Paul's testimony implies the historicity of the empty tomb, (2) the presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historicity, (3) the use of 'on the first day of the week' instead of 'on the third day' points to the primitiveness of the tradition, (4) the narrative is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic, (5) the discovery of the tomb by women is highly probable, (6) the investigation of the empty tomb by the disciples is historically probable, (7) it would have been impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had the tomb not been empty, (8) the Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. Source

And in light of all this I suspect there will still be nonbelievers posting in this thread who will continue to deny these 4, well established facts. For the sake of intellectual honesty (a virtue that is desperately needed on this forum) theists need to admit that these facts do not decisively prove God's existence. They only lend support to the proposition of God and the God hypothesis is only one of many explanations that accounts for these facts. In turn, atheists need to stop mimicking young earth creationists by denying these scientific and historical facts. There are many atheists and nontheists on this forum who do accept these facts without any reservations, but the ones that don't really need to start getting with program.

Question: Are the four items listed above facts? If so, how much credibility do they give the God hypothesis and Christian theism?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 80:

...
Depends what the testimony is based on. Testimony may not specifically be empirical evidence per say, but it is evidence nonetheless. So it's ironic that atheists (who fancy themselves to be evidenced based) would reject these biblical claims that do have testimonial evidence for them. And if you reject testimonies then I don't see how you can accept anything about ancient history, since all of history tends to be based upon testimony.

It can't possibly be the Bible lacks credibility, while other reports of ancient times don't?

Folks don't just walk across water. They don't just magically heal leprosy. Snakes don't talk. Folks don't hop up from a three day dead. And on, and on, and on, and on.

Get around that. Show us these things occur. Show us you and your Bible speak truth.

Or forever be frustrated that folks don't believe your claims simply 'cause you have a book.

[Danmark]

The fact that people are willing to go to their deaths for a belief lends additional credibility to the belief itself, granted it may not be that much. Like I said, there's this thing called rationality and self interest which is one of the main motivators for human behavior. Using this as a starting point, a person would never willing die for something they knew to be a lie and the fact that people do die for their beliefs shows that it is subjectively true for them, and it provides the belief with additional objective credibility.

[emphasis applied]

This quote appears to be your central thesis of your argument. I agree with your first sentence which I have put in bold font, and in particular with the last phrase of that sentence.

I disagree that NO one would die for a belief he knew to be untrue. People are simply more complex than that. People are willing to die for what they WANT to be true, even tho' they have their doubts. Who are you to decree what they actually believed?
People are more complex than that. People get psychologically cornered all the time and go on rants or worse defending positions that in their private, quiet moments they have grave doubts about. Sometimes those very doubts provide the fuel for their over the top arguments.

One of the things that made Wm. Shakespeare such an amazing writer is that he understood the complexity of human emotion and the contradictory nature of motivation. This truth is found in much of what he wrote. What comes to mind is the famous line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

It is all too human, to be willing to protest with vigor, even to the point of death, in a cause the protester himself may have his doubts about. Like many truths that append to the human condition, strict mathematical logic is not always as helpful as simple observation.

In short, dying for one's beliefs adds no weight whatsoever for the truth of those beliefs.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Here's what I mean: There is no historical evidence to support the stolen body hypothesis.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Really? None at all? First and foremost, the disciples DID NOT HAVE TO STEAL THE BODY OF JESUS. It was legally theirs to do with as they saw fit, given to Joseph of Arimethea, A DISCIPLE OF JESUS, by Pilate on the Friday before Passover.


*Facepalm....Do you even realize that what you're saying actually supports my position? Yes, the disciples did not have to steal the body because they were legally entitled to it. Why then would they put it in a tomb only to come back a few days later in order to steal it, which is what your contention is.

And what is your point? Sure, I'm not going to deny that what you've written here is informative but does it support your claim that the disciples stole the body from the tomb and that there is historical evidence to support this? No.

You really are having a difficult time wrapping your mind around this. As you certainly should be, considering that it only contradicts your lifetime of programing. It's hard to experience ones entire world-view being completely overturned, isn't it? First of all, there is no "historical evidence" for ANY OF THIS. The earliest written account for any of it does not occur until the letters written by Paul a quarter of a century or so AFTER Jesus was supposed to have been executed. And Paul was clearly not personally present to witness ANY OF IT. The only source of information we have concerning the life and death of Jesus which anyone is willing to credit with the possibility of being potentially valid, are the four Gospels, written by the followers of Jesus decades after he was supposed to have died. And some of the details contained in those four works could hardly be more obviously spurious. The Gospels were not written to be historical text books of course. They were written to promote Christian beliefs and Christian claims. But since the Gospels represent the only source of information which anyone is willing to accept concerning the abrupt rise of the cult of the crucified carpenter in the first century, then it is to them we must turn. And with all of that said, we certainly have every right to exclude any and all claims which run contrary to all common experience and observation with cause, until or unless we are left with no other choice but to consider such spurious claims as the only remaining plausible explanation. No implausible/impossible/supernatural claim should be considered reasonable or likely, so long as a perfectly good plausible/possible/natural explanation is available.

"Yes, the disciples did not have to 'steal' the body because they were legally entitled to it." We are both in full agreement here. The priests took control of Joseph's tomb sometime on Saturday. However the entrance was closed by a large boulder, and, given the nature of the holy day, THEY DID NOT INSPECT THE TOMB FOR THE BODY OF JESUS. The tomb proved in fact to be empty on Sunday morning. Just what the priests feared would occur. The basis for placing the guards at the tomb in the first place had in fact ALREADY OCCURRED. It is obvious to the exclusion to all REASONABLE doubt, that the tomb was ALREADY EMPTY WHEN THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF IT. Because the disciples did not wait several days to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb. It was likely only in the tomb for a matter of hours.

Because Joseph's personal brand new and very expensive family crypt was never intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. That is because family crypts are intended for FAMILY MEMBERS. Joseph's crypt was located near to the place where Jesus was crucified, and was simply a convenient private place to wash and prepare the body. Given the state of preservation technology 2,000 years ago, no refrigeration, no formaldehyde, no real preservation techniques available to them at all, this body, heavily wrapped and coated with 100 pounds of aromatic herbs, could hardly have been better prepared for a trip of several days, then if they had done it for that very reason. And when the preparations were finished, they departed, closing the door (great stone) behind them. They also likely took the body with them at that point, undoubtedly loading it into the animal drawn vehicle they would have used to transport it from Calvary. We can see this perfectly well. Because the next time the tomb is opened, IT PROVES TO BE EMPTY.

So where did they take the body of Jesus? Clearly the authors of the Gospels and Acts intended to convey that the body of Jesus had come back to life, and ultimately flew away, off up into the clouds. And just as clearly, THIS IS THE LEAST LIKELY OF ALL POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. The Gospels DO give us a reasonable hint at the final disposition of the body of Jesus however. Where did the apostles journey immediately after the execution of Jesus. They journeyed to Galilee, the dead man's family home (Matt.28:16). And where is it that the dead are usually interred? WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. The final act of devotion and respect possible to pay to a deceased friend, is to take his body home for burial. And since that is exactly where the apostles went following the death of Jesus, and since they already possessed the body with every legal right to do with it as they saw fit, if they DIDN'T take his body home with them, one would have to wonder why?

It is merely a convenient alternative explanation to the resurrection. I agree completely that the stolen body hypothesis makes more sense than the resurrection, and if some guys grave was found empty I'd conclude that the body was dug up and stolen by grave diggers. I would not conclude that the body magically arose out of the ground. But like I said, the stolen body hypothesis loses more and more credibility as we begin to consider the background information. The Romans anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead and put guards at the entrance of the tomb.

My "convenient alternative explanation to the resurrection" has the advantage of being completely plausible, has the obvious suspects with the means, motive and opportunity to have accomplished the task, and DOES NOT end with a corpse coming back to life and flying away. If the Roman's "anticipated that Jesus' disciples would steal the body in order to make it seem as if he'd risen from the dead," they why exactly did Pilate TURN THE BODY OVER TO HIS FOLLOWERS IN THE FIRST PLACE? Nor did the Roman's "put guards at the entrance of the tomb." Pilate simply allowed the priests to put guards at the entrance of the tomb.

An alternative explanation to the story in which the corpse comes back to life and flies away, is that a group of the close friends of the dead man quietly took his body home for burial. How totally unbelievable is that?

At face value it isn't unbelievable. But when you take background information into consideration it creates more and more holes in the stolen body hypothesis that you've been unable to account for. Read what I wrote again. I mentioned two historical problems that the stolen body hypothesis creates: 1) how would it have been possible for the disciples to raid the tomb and steal the body if the tomb was being guarded by Roman soldiers who were anticipating this? And 2) why would the disciples willingly die painful, gruesome deaths for something they knew to be a lie? Neither you nor the stolen body hypothesis adequately explains these two things. So like I said, scientifically speaking the stolen body hypothesis best explains the empty tomb because it's highly unlikely for people to come back to life. But historically speaking the resurrection is a better explanation because while it is scientifically improbably, it accounts for the historical facts better than any natural explanation can.

Neither of these "holes" in the story actually exist, and I have already explained both fully. There is no indication in scripture that the "disciples willingly die painful, gruesome deaths." Christians have simply assumed among themselves that of course this must have necessarily occurred. It has no support in scripture however. And I already covered this thoroughly. Perhaps you would be well served to actually READ my previous post.

The Roman Governor GAVE THE BODY OF JESUS TO HIS DISCIPLES TO DISPOSE OF AS THEY SAW FIT. Joseph of Arimethea was a rich man, and so a considerable gift to the governor for such a favor is implied here. Pilate was not known for being soft hearted.

Proof? I'd say the opposite. Pilate was soft hearted and reluctant to have Jesus crucified. All you have to do is read any of the passion narratives in the Gospels to see that Pilate was indeed 'soft hearted.'

What you "say" about Pilate and what actual history actually tells us about Pilate are two entirely different things. Pilate was eventually removed from his position by Rome for his exceptionally harsh methods. And not every stray off of the street could expect to be accorded an audience with the Roman governor. Joseph, a wealthy man, COULD, precisely because he was a wealthy man. And offering a gift to the governor for granting a favor was customary. It's how men in Pilate's position made their wealth. The narrative does not mention the gift, but it is implied in the narrative by informing us that Joseph was a wealthy man, as he would certainly have had to have been.

Actually, the nationality of the guard is not mentioned. But that is besides the point. The point is that there was a guard at the tomb, whether this is one guard or multiple guards is not made clear. Also, the priests you mentioned had every incentive to ensure that the disciples did not steal the body which is why Matthew says the secured the tomb.

They closed the barn door alright, but only AFTER the horse was gone. I know it's hard for you to accept that the mighty edifice that is Christianity could in reality be nothing more then a collection of 2,000 year old empty claims made by simple ancient superstitious people. Yet it's never bothered you at ALL that those other false religions practiced by those other poor deluded fools are in reality nothing but empty claims, has it?

[Ooberman]

TOTN, I have to agree. It's remarkable how Christians are blinded by the carefully constructed narrative the Church has been feeding them.

Then they say "I'm just being logical! If the Romans are good at killin' people, then Jesus must have been dead!"

They don't consider that maybe the whole story is a little off - that no one saw Jesus killed or that he was executed or anything...

Their "logic" is restricted to the narrow narrative of the Gospels, and so whatever story works (is harmonized) is the true facts, to them.

They seem unable to think that maybe - just maybe - (for example) that any one of the writers weren't really one of the apostles. They are unable to consider - even for a moment - that any of the Bible has been tampered with in any significant way.

To do so would risk their soul to damnation... or so the con men who sell them the story tell them.

It's astounding to me that people still flock to be fleeced by con men and (barely)functional morons - aka the Church.

[WinePusher]

I disagree that NO one would die for a belief he knew to be untrue. People are simply more complex than that. People are willing to die for what they WANT to be true, even tho' they have their doubts. Who are you to decree what they actually believed?
People are more complex than that. People get psychologically cornered all the time and go on rants or worse defending positions that in their private, quiet moments they have grave doubts about. Sometimes those very doubts provide the fuel for their over the top arguments.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with people being uncertain about their beliefs. I'm sure that many people would be willing to die for a belief that they're uncertain and unsure about. But, do you know anyone in your personal life who would be willing to undergo crucifixion or be thrown into a den of lions for a belief that they absolutely knew to be a flat out lie? Because that is my claim. Somebody would not die a gruesome death for something they knew was a lie.

One of the things that made Wm. Shakespeare such an amazing writer is that he understood the complexity of human emotion and the contradictory nature of motivation. This truth is found in much of what he wrote. What comes to mind is the famous line from Hamlet, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

When did I deny that humans are complex creatures? The point I'm trying to make is that we can make draw certain conclusions about human behavior using the social sciences. Human behavior is the underlying foundation for all the social sciences, and using this body of knowledge we can say for certain that humans are rational, self interested creatures. We are rational in the sense that we make cogent decisions that maximize satisfaction and utlity. Dying for a lie is not a rational, cogent decision nor does it provide the person with any satisfication or utility therefore it's safe to say that the disciples genuinely and sincerely believed Jesus' rose from the dead and did not steal the body.

In short, dying for one's beliefs adds no weight whatsoever for the truth of those beliefs.

I think you would look at this issue differently if you approached it from a more personal standpoint. I don't know if you have any children, but let's say that you have a son. Your son comes to you and tells you about how he was abducted by aliens one night. You, being an intelligent human being, obviously disregard his claim (I would do the same). But, let's say he's continues claiming that he was abducted by aliens and eventually his school and all your friends and associates get fed up with his nonsensical claims and threanten to kill him unless he stops. But you son doesn't stop and persists with his alien abduction claim. Finally, everyone in your city gives him one last chance to stop or else they'll all crucify him. Even in spite of their threats he continues on and asa result you all have him crucified. Now obviously we don't live in such a barbaric civilization and our first instinct wouldn't be to crucify him, but to instead get him psychiatric help. But, let's say that this did happen. You son died a painful death for a totally absurd claim. You wouldn't take a minute to look yourself in the mirror and ask why? Why would my son die for this? If he just made it up why would he take it this far? Why wouldn't he just admit he lied?

[WinePusher]

You really are having a difficult time wrapping your mind around this.

True, I'm not really that great at understanding nonsense. And trust me, the way you're constantly shifting the goalposts and changing your positions doesn't make it any easier. One minute you're complaing about the truth of my facts and then another minute you're admitting that they are indeed facts. Make up your mind.

As you certainly should be, considering that it only contradicts your lifetime of programing.

You don't know anything about me (THANK GOD) so I think it'd be best for you to refrain from making these clueless, ignorant, uninformed statements. Since you seem to be so curious about my past (only God knows why) I'll give you a little synopsis. I used to be an atheist and my only tie to religion was through an exgirlfriend I once had who was Buddhist. And in order to cozy up to her I started doing the whole Buddhist thing too. I didn't believe in any God and had a particular problem with Christian doctrines regarding hell and struggled with the problem of evil. But overtime, through a combination of academic philosophical readings and personal experiences with my Lord, I became enlightened and converted to Catholicism, a decision I've never once regreted. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why atheists are so hostile to religion and religious believers? Christianity provides a unique type of hope and love that has transformed communities, nations and individual lives. Atheists cannot enjoy all these exclusive 'Christian' things, and I think this sufficiently explains why you guys are constantly railing against the religious.

Think about it for a moment. You're spending a huge portion of your time, both physically and mentally, obsessing and arguing about a being you don't even believe exists. Do you see me arguing about unicorns? Do you see me arguing about bigfoot? Do you see me obsessing about mermaids?

It's hard to experience ones entire world-view being completely overturned, isn't it?

You really think you have the skill and knowledge to overturn an entire worldview that has impacted the world tremendously. LOLOL. The only thing you've 'completely overturned' is your own argument. How is anyone supposed to know what your position is when you keep changing it?

First of all, there is no "historical evidence" for ANY
OF THIS.

Whether you like it or not the Gospels do count as historical evidence and they are the primary sources of information that ancient historians use to derive information about Jesus.

The only source of information we have concerning the life and death of Jesus which anyone is willing to credit with the possibility of being potentially valid, are the four Gospels, written by the followers of Jesus decades after he was supposed to have died.

The fact that they were written only decades of Jesus' lifetime lends them an enourmous amount of credibility considering that many other texts documenting the lives of other ancient historical figures (such as Alexander the Great) were written centuries after his lifetime.

"Yes, the disciples did not have to 'steal' the body because they were legally entitled to it." We are both in full agreement here. The priests took control of Joseph's tomb sometime on Saturday. However the entrance was closed by a large boulder, and, given the nature of the holy day, THEY DID NOT INSPECT THE TOMB FOR THE BODY OF JESUS. The tomb proved in fact to be empty on Sunday morning. Just what the priests feared would occur. The basis for placing the guards at the tomb in the first place had in fact ALREADY OCCURRED. It is obvious to the exclusion to all REASONABLE doubt, that the tomb was ALREADY EMPTY WHEN THE PRIESTS TOOK POSSESSION OF IT. Because the disciples did not wait several days to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb. It was likely only in the tomb for a matter of hours.

Sounds like a conspiracy to me. What evidence do you have for this? Or will you admit that it's just a made up hypothesis on your part to avoid positing the resurrection? If the tomb was empty from the beginning then why would first century scribes waste time devoting precious resources to inscribing made up narratives? If the tomb was empty from the beginning and the whole story was concocted then why do the narratives have women being the first ones to discover the empty tomb? Additionally, why would the disciples willingly die horrible deaths for Christianity if this was all a convulted scheme?

And since that is exactly where the apostles went following the death of Jesus, and since they already possessed the body with every legal right to do with it as they saw fit, if they DIDN'T take his body home with them, one would have to wonder why?

To be clear, your claim is that the tomb was just an entire charade. The disciples never intended to place Jesus' body in the tomb, they just got the tomb in order to make it seem like Jesus rose from the dead. In other words, the tomb was just part of this huge masterplan. Ok, so first, what evidence is there for this? Second, how does this deal with any of the historical problems I brought up? Third, don't you think this sounds a little bit far fetched and conspiratorial?

Neither of these "holes" in the story actually exist, and I have already explained both fully. There is no indication in scripture that the "disciples willingly die painful, gruesome deaths." Christians have simply assumed among themselves that of course this must have necessarily occurred. It has no support in scripture however. And I already covered this thoroughly. Perhaps you would be well served to actually READ my previous post.

So the entire Christian martydom that took place over the course of the first and second century didn't happen? There is no indication that the disciples were martyed? There is no indication that the disciples chose to preach Christianity in spite of Jewish and Roman persecution? Is this a joke?

[WinePusher]

TOTN, I have to agree. It's remarkable how Christians are blinded by the carefully constructed narrative the Church has been feeding them.

Well, I tend to take personal attacks such as this with a grain of salt. I think it's safe to say that people who say that other people are 'blind' and 'indoctrinated' are 'blind' and 'indoctrinated' themselves. But since you took the liberty to insult my intelligence, I think that we both know who the smarter person here is Ooberman . We both know who the better debater is, we both know which person is more knowledgable when it comes to a wide variety of subjects, we both know who the better writer is here, so on so forth.

Then they say "I'm just being logical! If the Romans are good at killin' people, then Jesus must have been dead!"

They don't consider that maybe the whole story is a little off - that no one saw Jesus killed or that he was executed or anything...

What on earth? Do you even have any idea what you're saying? Have you ever read a New Testament textbook in your life? From what I've read here it doesn't seem like it.

To do so would risk their soul to damnation... or so the con men who sell them the story tell them.

I can't say the same for you, but I think for myself which is why I can say with absolute certainty that I know more about these topics than you do. All you've here is project your failures onto other people. When you say that other people are blind and indoctrinated it indicates that you are blind and indoctrinated yourself. When you claim that other people are simple minded, foolish and moronic it indicates that you are simple minded, foolish and moronic yourself.

It's astounding to me that people still flock to be fleeced by con men and (barely)functional morons - aka the Church.

Not to sound presumputious, but all these 'con men' and 'barely functional morons' inspire many people and do enormous amounts of good for the world. And from what I can tell all you do is sit behind a computer screen railing against Christianity. So imo, these 'con men' and 'barely functional morons' are much of more of an asset to the world than all the internet atheists combined.

[Ooberman]

You said "When you say that other people are blind and indoctrinated it indicates that you are blind and indoctrinated yourself. When you claim that other people are simple minded, foolish and moronic it indicates that you are simple minded, foolish and moronic yourself. "


Which means.... "When you say that other people are blind and indoctrinated it indicates that you are blind and indoctrinated yourself. When you claim that other people are simple minded, foolish and moronic it indicates that you are simple minded, foolish and moronic yourself. "

Hmmm. I bet you regret carrying around that petard now.



Seriously, winepusher, your input holds no value to me. All you and your fellow Religionists do is quote the Bible.

Well, I've got a Bible.
If I want your opinion, I'll open it to a random page and pretend it's supposed to be relevant.


BTW, can you show me the passage in the Bible that says what you are saying? Because we all know you don't accept anything outside the Bible.

Sadly, the fact is, sometimes, the person offended by something is that very thing that offends them.

[dianaiad]

TOTN, I have to agree. It's remarkable how Christians are blinded by the carefully constructed narrative the Church has been feeding them.

Well, I tend to take personal attacks such as this with a grain of salt. I think it's safe to say that people who say that other people are 'blind' and 'indoctrinated' are 'blind' and 'indoctrinated' themselves. But since you took the liberty to insult my intelligence, I think that we both know who the smarter person here is Ooberman . We both know who the better debater is, we both know which person is more knowledgable when it comes to a wide variety of subjects, we both know who the better writer is here, so on so forth.

Then they say "I'm just being logical! If the Romans are good at killin' people, then Jesus must have been dead!"

They don't consider that maybe the whole story is a little off - that no one saw Jesus killed or that he was executed or anything...

What on earth? Do you even have any idea what you're saying? Have you ever read a New Testament textbook in your life? From what I've read here it doesn't seem like it.

To do so would risk their soul to damnation... or so the con men who sell them the story tell them.

I can't say the same for you, but I think for myself which is why I can say with absolute certainty that I know more about these topics than you do. All you've here is project your failures onto other people. When you say that other people are blind and indoctrinated it indicates that you are blind and indoctrinated yourself. When you claim that other people are simple minded, foolish and moronic it indicates that you are simple minded, foolish and moronic yourself.

It's astounding to me that people still flock to be fleeced by con men and (barely)functional morons - aka the Church.

Not to sound presumputious, but all these 'con men' and 'barely functional morons' inspire many people and do enormous amounts of good for the world. And from what I can tell all you do is sit behind a computer screen railing against Christianity. So imo, these 'con men' and 'barely functional morons' are much of more of an asset to the world than all the internet atheists combined.

Moderator Comment

please talk about the contents of the posts, and don't make personal remarks.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Joab]

And from what I can tell all you do is sit behind a computer screen railing against Christianity.

Which one?