there Is No God?

[TheHate]

Hi everyone i am ashley, i am a senior in high school age 17
i just wanted to discuss the matter of religon
my mom has always gone to church and what-not
and tried getting me to go.
I agreed but did not like it...
i felt in my mind
how can you bealive some invisable man up in the sky, he gives you 10 things not to do, and if you do them you go to a fiery world?
does that should like love to you?
personally me it did not
and then to think, i get a person on my game messaging me daily saying "God loves you' EVERY DAY! i usually curse at him and not speak to him for a bit. But we had a heated debate on religion and i said"Tell me how you bealive something that has no proven facts NON" and he replys "because i have faith" , In retaliation i said "what if you are wrong?, what if there is nothing and you wasted your whole life"? and he replyed "i would have done it out of love"
Mind you, he is about 13 , but how are you going to waste your entiere life on something that may not exist . Then i relized, i am Atheists because i have had so many discustions on this that it is entierlly to confusing so Atheists is the way to go in my opinion.
But if anyone has anything to say otherwise i gues...enlighten me
but also my mind may not be changed easly
my mind is not easly corrupted

[Mkey4God]

On what basis can you claim that? On what basis do you claim the universe MUST have had a beginning. Is it not possible that the universe, in some form or another, has always existed.

If there were some theory that acknowledged that, then you've struck gold. Only, what I see is the law of entropy taking its effect. The universe had to have been "wound up," and it's going to end eventually. Eternity is a long shot for a materialist- but it's his only hope.

The deeper we get into this the more of a need I see for a Creator.

What, for you, would constitute evidence?

A proved experiment, a liable fossil record, a "missing link," anything along those lines.

Morals have clearly evolved and are continuing to do so. Look at the morals of, for example, ancient Greece. Women and children were property. Look at the morals of the west up until relatively recently - slavery was an accepted and acceptable business venture. The claim that a certain moral behavior is a law of nature is unsupportable.

Right there, do you see? You judged the morals of another country and, essentially, compared them with an ultimate moral law. This Law of Nature is unchanging. Individuals have gone against it by accident and are trying to follow it in different ways. But they always fail.

Even beyond that, all beings move towards right over wrong. Otherwise, there would be no incentive to do anything, and we would not have survived up to this point. Any attempt at explaining this Law from a materialistic world view will crash and burn. I don't know what you see, but I see the finger prints of God.

If you would like a better understanding of what I mean by this Law, here's chapter 1 of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, from which I derived this "Law of Nature." Let me know what you think of this principle.

Charles Darwin wrote books. Jesus didn't.

Charles Darwin is widely and independently corroborated - Jesus is not.

Poor analogy.

Jesus' teachings were written down; He might as well have written a book.

So many ancient writers acknowledged Jesus. Several of them knew Him personally and wrote their testimony in what is now referred to as the Gospel. Immediately after His death, Jesus was followed by thousands of early Jews in the face of unrelenting persecution. He is spoken to, and speaks back, if I may be so bold, even to this day.

Any more reason to believe that Darwin really existed? After all- he could just be another hysteric myth thought up in order to free humanity from its previous accountability to moral guidelines.

The fact that it is not a myth, however, is not lacking in evidence. The thousands of early Christians did not start their religions on the writings of Mark, rather, on the sightings of the resurrected Jesus. If it were all just a myth, Christianity would not have made it thus far.

Hinduism must be true then. The entire Hindu pantheon are also not mythical. It is older and has been around longer and over the millennia has had many more adherent s than christianity.

I'm not arguing about whether Christianity is true. I'm arguing on whether Jesus existed.

None of them met with the physical Jesus. They credited the fiction which was Jesus with a real existence. After that - the very human trait of self interest did the rest

And on what basis do you support this claim? There can be none whatsoever. And, apparently, the early churches would not have been satisfied with supersticious writings.

Have you read mark? Mark is a narrative. His writing gives no indication that he met or knew the historical personage who became known as Jesus.

Mark is a testimony, like a journalist's article. The fact that it is a narrative does not in any way provide a basis for the assumption that the disciples knew Him. In fact, they said that they were called, individually, by Him. Of course they met with Him.

When Mao was asked as to what he believed were the long term effects of the French Revolution he replied "It is too soon too tell'.

Islamic countries were far more 'blessed' during the 'dark ages' than the 'christian' - in science, the arts, philosophy and metaphysics.

The point being you are observing this from a particular standpoint in time.

What Christian countries are you comparing the Islamic ones to?

That said - how 'blessed' really is the consumer addicted, christian west?

How 'blessed' is the USofA? Do mass killings by gunmen on a regular basis count towards the blessings? Does the highest incarceration rate in the developed world count towards 'blessings'? Do the millions who go without proper health care count as 'blessings'? Do the millions of urban poor who cannot afford enough food or an adequate education for their children count as 'blessings'?

No doubt there are many who count their 'blessings' and say - 'there, but for the grace of god, go I'.

Someone who has true compassion and understands metta can look at 'them' and truly understand - "there, thanks to the grace of god, go I"

I didn't say that we are perfect. This nation was founded on the Bible, and, as a result, is now the leading world power.

Of course, the moral landscape of America is one of extremes. Either you abide by the basis that the nation was founded on, or you completely reject it. You are speaking of those who reject it. I am talking about the overall.

4. it's an intimate relationship. When you're on the outside looking in, it is subjective, even foolish. From the inside looking out, it's the doorway to freedom.

Isn't the interesting - I say exactly the same thing about my world view.

I don't think I could possibly find freedom in a world view like atheism. Bertrand Russel, an atheist, said:

"That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destines to extinction...that the whole temple of man's achievements must inevitably be buried-- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."

We are all on the same journey Michael.

regards

B

Yes we are. And I hope we'll all agree by time it's over.

[McCulloch]

What, for you, would constitute evidence?

A proved experiment, a liable fossil record, a "missing link," anything along those lines.

Every intermediate species discovered creates two new missing links, one from its ancestor species to it and one from it to its descendant species. Creationists therefore, will forever call for missing links, ever more so with every newly discovered intermediate species.

So many ancient writers acknowledged Jesus. Several of them knew Him personally and wrote their testimony in what is now referred to as the Gospel. Immediately after His death, Jesus was followed by thousands of early Jews in the face of unrelenting persecution. He is spoken to, and speaks back, if I may be so bold, even to this day.

Odd thing. The only ancient writers who acknowledge Jesus were His followers. It would have been more convincing if some of his enemies would have acknowledged his existence, like the enemies of Darwin, Caesar and others.
Jesus is spoken to as an invisible friend by many. He speaks back only in the ancient writings and in the fertile imaginations of those who claim to follow him.

The fact that it is not a myth, however, is not lacking in evidence. The thousands of early Christians did not start their religions on the writings of Mark, rather, on the sightings of the resurrected Jesus. If it were all just a myth, Christianity would not have made it thus far.

Hinduism must be true then. The entire Hindu pantheon are also not mythical. It is older and has been around longer and over the millennia has had many more adherent s than christianity.

I'm not arguing about whether Christianity is true. I'm arguing on whether Jesus existed.

You are arguing the existence of Jesus based on the success of Christianity. Bernee argues the existence of the Hindu pantheon based on the success of Hinduism. I see no great difference.

I didn't say that we are perfect. This nation was founded on the Bible, and, as a result, is now the leading world power.

In what way was the USA founded on the Bible?

[Goat]

What, for you, would constitute evidence?

A proved experiment, a liable fossil record, a "missing link," anything along those lines.

You are in luck. There are TONS of liable fossil records about evolution. although the concept of 'missing link' is more along the lines of popular media and creationist misunderstanding. There are also testable, repeatable experiments.

They bred fly in different conditions in the laboratory ,and were able to produce offspring that were related to each other , but unable to produce fertile offspring just by isolation and different environmental conditions. The environment was
'artificial' but the ability of the flies to change, and their mutations were entirely natural.

As for the fossil record, we have the lines from man, the horse, whales, birds, and a lot others. This page is a good introductory to horse fossils and evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/

[Mkey4God]

What, for you, would constitute evidence?

A proved experiment, a liable fossil record, a "missing link," anything along those lines.

Every intermediate species discovered creates two new missing links, one from its ancestor species to it and one from it to its descendant species. Creationists therefore, will forever call for missing links, ever more so with every newly discovered intermediate species.

Where are the missing links between man and his early ancestors? Where are the missing links between reptiles and birds? Are you saying that every variation, every new discovery of a creature, is called a missing link? But the old species continue to reproduce. And the truly important links, that make for actual evidence, are conveniently missing. These are the links I am asking for. You have provided another part of the theory. It is not evidence.

So many ancient writers acknowledged Jesus. Several of them knew Him personally and wrote their testimony in what is now referred to as the Gospel. Immediately after His death, Jesus was followed by thousands of early Jews in the face of unrelenting persecution. He is spoken to, and speaks back, if I may be so bold, even to this day.

Odd thing. The only ancient writers who acknowledge Jesus were His followers. It would have been more convincing if some of his enemies would have acknowledged his existence, like the enemies of Darwin, Caesar and others.
Jesus is spoken to as an invisible friend by many. He speaks back only in the ancient writings and in the fertile imaginations of those who claim to follow him.

Jesus was spoken of by Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Josephus. Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion. Mind that Thallus was an enemy of Christ. Also, Pliny the Younger spoke of Him. He, also, was an enemy of the Christ. Emperor Trajan replied to him. Jesus is spoken of also in The Jewish Talmud. Lucian, from Greece, wrote of Him. He was an enemy of the Christ. Rather than go on, I'll give you the link: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/li ... blical.htm

In what way was the USA founded on the Bible?

It seems this is a whole other debate in itself, so I'll leave it at the fact that Christianity is predominant in the US.

[McCulloch]

Where are the missing links between man and his early ancestors? Where are the missing links between reptiles and birds?

Fossilization is a relatively rare process. Not every dead body gets fossilized. Not every fossil is discovered. Sahelanthropus tchadensis • Orrorin tugenensis • Ardipithecus • Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus: A. anamensis • A. afarensis • A. bahrelghazali • A. africanus • A. garhi Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus • P. boisei • P. robustus
Homo: H. habilis • H. rudolfensis • H. georgicus • H. ergaster • H. erectus (H. e. lantianensis • H. e. palaeojavanicus • H. e. pekinensis • H. e. soloensis) • H. cepranensis • H. antecessor • H. heidelbergensis • H. neanderthalensis • H. rhodesiensis • H. floresiensis • Homo sapiens (H. s. idaltu • H. s. sapiens)
How many do you want?

Odd thing. The only ancient writers who acknowledge Jesus were His followers. It would have been more convincing if some of his enemies would have acknowledged his existence, like the enemies of Darwin, Caesar and others.
Jesus is spoken to as an invisible friend by many. He speaks back only in the ancient writings and in the fertile imaginations of those who claim to follow him.

Jesus was spoken of by Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Josephus.

That part of Josephus that is not considered a forgery, only points to the existence of Christians not Jesus.

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Ref: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

This speaks more to the myth and the effects of the myth than of an historical person.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion. Mind that Thallus was an enemy of Christ.

What exactly is Thallus supposed to have said about Jesus? We don't really know. We can only guess, based on an obscure passage passed down to us second-hand which already shows signs of at least one interpolation. George Syncellus, a 9th-century monk, composed a world chronicle, quoting verbatim from numerous previous chroniclers, one of whom being the 3rd-century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus. In one such case, Africanus is quoted regarding "what followed the savior's passion and life-giving resurrection" as follows:

• This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?

This is all we get. It isn't clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all. Africanus is merely criticising the possibility that the darkness at the death of Christ was a solar eclipse, and thus a natural rather than a supernatural event--an attack addressed in the Apology of Tertullian, and voiced by the Jews in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which may have been written in the time of Africanus. Although this implies that Thallus mentioned the death of Christ in some way, it does not entail it. For Thallus may have simply recorded an eclipse that occurred around the time that Christ was believed to have died, with Africanus connecting the events on his own. We do not have the context of this quote, and we do not know what else Africanus said about this event or about Thallus. Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.

Ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html

Also, Pliny the Younger spoke of Him. He, also, was an enemy of the Christ. Emperor Trajan replied to him.

If you read Pliny and Lucian, you will find that they are good evidence of the early Christians but not of Jesus himself.

In what way was the USA founded on the Bible?

It seems this is a whole other debate in itself, so I'll leave it at the fact that Christianity is predominant in the US.

For now America lags behind the civilized world in this regard.

[Goat]

Jesus was spoken of by Cornelius Tacitus and Flavius Josephus. Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion. Mind that Thallus was an enemy of Christ. Also, Pliny the Younger spoke of Him. He, also, was an enemy of the Christ. Emperor Trajan replied to him. Jesus is spoken of also in The Jewish Talmud. Lucian, from Greece, wrote of Him. He was an enemy of the Christ. Rather than go on, I'll give you the link: http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/li ... blical.htm

In what way was the USA founded on the Bible?

It seems this is a whole other debate in itself, so I'll leave it at the fact that Christianity is predominant in the US.

Well, you should realize the that Josephus accounts are additions from later on. Tacitus write in the second century, and it is extremely likely he got his information
from Christians (hardly an independant source). Africa nus was assuming that
an eclipse that Thallus mentioned was the one that the Bible mentioned, but that is a mere assumption, since there were several eclipses around that time period (but none near passover). As for Pilney the Younger, he got all his information about Jesus from the torture of a couple of slaves who were deaconesses. Not a very reliable source there. If you have to resort to forgeries, and things that are
second and third hand accounts, well, that isn't very strong now is it.

[bernee51]

Jesus' teachings were written down; He might as well have written a book.

So you admit that Jesus alleged words are hearsay. That's a positive start.

So many ancient writers acknowledged Jesus. Several of them knew Him personally and wrote their testimony in what is now referred to as the Gospel.

Which ones?

Any more reason to believe that Darwin really existed? After all- he could just be another hysteric myth thought up in order to free humanity from its previous accountability to moral guidelines.

Do you really believe that?

The fact that it is not a myth, however, is not lacking in evidence. The thousands of early Christians did not start their religions on the writings of Mark, rather, on the sightings of the resurrected Jesus. If it were all just a myth, Christianity would not have made it thus far.

Hinduism must be true then. The entire Hindu pantheon are also not mythical. It is older and has been around longer and over the millennia has had many more adherent s than christianity.

I'm not arguing about whether Christianity is true. I'm arguing on whether Jesus existed.

You were making an argumentum ad populam. If you can I can.

Islamic countries were far more 'blessed' during the 'dark ages' than the 'christian' - in science, the arts, philosophy and metaphysics.

The point being you are observing this from a particular standpoint in time.

What Christian countries are you comparing the Islamic ones to?

Obviously you are unaware of the 'dark ages' of christian Europe initiated by the totalitarian regime instigated by Constatine.

Of course, the moral landscape of America is one of extremes. Either you abide by the basis that the nation was founded on, or you completely reject it. You are speaking of those who reject it. I am talking about the overall.

Have you traveled outside the USofA?

I don't think I could possibly find freedom in a world view like atheism.

Then you are wrong...my existence denies this.

Yes we are. And I hope we'll all agree by time it's over.

The true barrier to peace is the 'labelsayers'. Until the labels are let go of we will have np peace.

[Cathar1950]

Call it a weakness, but I always get suspicious when anyone motivated by ideology and the belief in an absolute they feel they can interpret for everyone.
Implied in their message is a “Us” and “them” presumption. It isn't just deist, atheist or theist views.
There is everything in between and outside, and we need to get along. Our senses of justice, morality, mercy, and meaning are almost universal in cultures and no appeal to God is necessary no matter how persuasive. I think this countries ideals as expressed in the Constitution were based on the Enlightenment even if the Bible was used.
In let's say the last 1000 years, when was the Bible not used? Even in battle with “Atheist” the Bible was still being used and most atheist experiments had the ideal, one of many, to replace god with the state. Given the use of God in the past, it is not an unreasonable idea.

[Mkey4God]

Fossilization is a relatively rare process. Not every dead body gets fossilized. Not every fossil is discovered. Sahelanthropus tchadensis • Orrorin tugenensis • Ardipithecus • Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus: A. anamensis • A. afarensis • A. bahrelghazali • A. africanus • A. garhi Paranthropus: P. aethiopicus • P. boisei • P. robustus
Homo: H. habilis • H. rudolfensis • H. georgicus • H. ergaster • H. erectus (H. e. lantianensis • H. e. palaeojavanicus • H. e. pekinensis • H. e. soloensis) • H. cepranensis • H. antecessor • H. heidelbergensis • H. neanderthalensis • H. rhodesiensis • H. floresiensis • Homo sapiens (H. s. idaltu • H. s. sapiens)
How many do you want?

Is there any evidence of these links' existence?

That part of Josephus that is not considered a forgery, only points to the existence of Christians not Jesus.

Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD:

But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

Ref: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html

This speaks more to the myth and the effects of the myth than of an historical person.

Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion. Mind that Thallus was an enemy of Christ.

What exactly is Thallus supposed to have said about Jesus? We don't really know. We can only guess, based on an obscure passage passed down to us second-hand which already shows signs of at least one interpolation. George Syncellus, a 9th-century monk, composed a world chronicle, quoting verbatim from numerous previous chroniclers, one of whom being the 3rd-century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus. In one such case, Africanus is quoted regarding "what followed the savior's passion and life-giving resurrection" as follows:

• This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?

This is all we get. It isn't clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all. Africanus is merely criticising the possibility that the darkness at the death of Christ was a solar eclipse, and thus a natural rather than a supernatural event--an attack addressed in the Apology of Tertullian, and voiced by the Jews in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which may have been written in the time of Africanus. Although this implies that Thallus mentioned the death of Christ in some way, it does not entail it. For Thallus may have simply recorded an eclipse that occurred around the time that Christ was believed to have died, with Africanus connecting the events on his own. We do not have the context of this quote, and we do not know what else Africanus said about this event or about Thallus. Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.

Ref: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... allus.html

If you read Pliny and Lucian, you will find that they are good evidence of the early Christians but not of Jesus himself.

Most of the references I've seen refer specifically to Jesus and refer to His life as fact. Look here:
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Also, I don't really know what I'm talking about, because I haven't learned anything about Josephus. But here's some questions: why is Josephus' reference to Jesus considered a forgery? Even if it was, how does it matter? It was still written very long ago, and is a reference to the Christ's existence. And why isn't Paul considered a reliable source? He wrote 40 years after Jesus' death, and just because his writings are a part of the Bible doesn't depreciate their value.

And look in the Babylonian Talmud, also. It mentions Jesus and the Sanhedrin's sentencing on Him.

For now America lags behind the civilized world in this regard.

The regard being Christianity? There are more than 2 billion Christians in the US. How does it lag behind?

[Mkey4God]

Jesus' teachings were written down; He might as well have written a book.

So you admit that Jesus alleged words are hearsay. That's a positive start.

Of course He didn't write them down Himself. His sermons and teachings were recorded by His disciples. How does this serve to support your stand?

So many ancient writers acknowledged Jesus. Several of them knew Him personally and wrote their testimony in what is now referred to as the Gospel.

Which ones?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Any more reason to believe that Darwin really existed? After all- he could just be another hysteric myth thought up in order to free humanity from its previous accountability to moral guidelines.

Do you really believe that?

Do you really believe that Jesus didn't exist? Because, if you don't, then why do you believe that Darwin existed? How are they different?

I'm not arguing about whether Christianity is true. I'm arguing on whether Jesus existed.

You were making an argumentum ad populam. If you can I can.

You attacked my beliefs by saying that Jesus didn't exist. I said that Jesus did exist. I did not say that Christianity is true because Jesus existed. I am only defending my beliefs in the regard that Jesus did exist. I'm not proving my religion to be true, I'm simply defending my beliefs from your invalid disproof.

Obviously you are unaware of the 'dark ages' of christian Europe initiated by the totalitarian regime instigated by Constatine.

If someone fails to use the morals correctly, then the morals themselves are not to blame for a lack of blessings.

I don't think I could possibly find freedom in a world view like atheism.

Then you are wrong...my existence denies this.

Freedom from moral guidelines and the Great Commission could take some weight off your soldiers. But, then the Bible says, "With God, all things are possible." This verse makes Christianity a lot more comforting and less stressful than atheism. And, if you think about it, what good comes from your world view? How can you find confidence in the belief that you are alone in what you do? There is more weight on your shoulders then than if you are a Christians. At least we know we have hope for the future.

Yes we are. And I hope we'll all agree by time it's over.

The true barrier to peace is the 'labelsayers'. Until the labels are let go of we will have np peace.

Or until the realization that we are all just looking for truth comes into play.