825 Total Votes


427 votes


Islam is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion articulated by the Qur'an, a book considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of God and by the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God. An ... adherent of Islam is called a Muslim.Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable and the purpose of existence is to submit to and serve Allah. Muslims also believe that Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed before many times throughout the world, including notably through Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, whom they consider prophets. They maintain that the previous messages and revelations have been partially misinterpreted or altered over time, but consider the Arabic Qur'an to be both the unaltered and the final revelation of God. Religious concepts and practices include the five pillars of Islam, which are basic concepts and obligatory acts of worship, and following Islamic law, which touches on virtually every aspect of life and society, providing guidance on multifarious topics from banking and welfare, to warfare and the environment   more
78 votes


Protestantism encompasses forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with doctrines and religious, political, and ecclesiological impulses of the Protestant Reformation against what they considered the errors of the Roman Catholic Church....  The term refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms condemning the teachings of Martin Luther as heresy. However, the term has been used in several different senses, often as a general term to refer to Western Christianity that is not subject to papal authority, including some traditions that were not part of the original Protestant movement; a "branch" of Christianity.The Protestant movement has its origins in Germany and is popularly considered to have begun in 1517 when Luther published The Ninety-Five Theses as a reaction against medieval doctrines and practices, especially with regard to salvation, justification, and ecclesiology. The various Protestant denominations share a rejection of the authority of the pope and generally deny the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, although they disagree among themselves about the doctrine of Christ's presence in the Eucharist. They generally emphasize the priesthood of all believers, the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from good works, and a belief in the Bible rather than Catholic tradition as the supreme authority in matters of faith and morals   more
76 votes


Catholicism is a broad term for describing specific traditions in the Christian churches in theology and doctrine, liturgy, ethics and spirituality. For many the term usually refers to Christians and churches, western and eastern, in full communion ... with the Holy See, usually known as the Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church. However, many others use the term to refer to other churches with historical continuity from the first millennium.In the sense of indicating historical continuity of faith and practice, the term "Catholicism" is at times employed to mark a contrast to Protestantism, which tends to look solely to the Bible as interpreted on the principles of the 16th-century Protestant Reformation as its ultimate standard. It was thus used by the Oxford Movement.For some, however, such as the priest and theologian Richard McBrien, the term refers exclusively and specifically to that "Communion of Catholic Churches" in communion with the Bishop of Rome. In its Letter on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stressed that the idea of the universal church as a communion of churches must not be presented as meaning that "every particular Church is a subject complete in itself, and that the universal church is the result of a reciprocal recognition on the part of the particular Churches". It insisted that "the universal Church cannot be conceived as the sum of the particular Churches, or as a federation of particular Churches"   more
60 votes


Mormonism is the predominant religious tradition of the Latter Day Saint movement of Restorationist Christianity. This movement was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr., in the 1820s. During the 1830s and 1840s, Mormonism gradually distinguished itself from...  traditional Protestantism. Mormonism today represents the new, non-Protestant faith taught by Smith in the 1840s. After Smith's death, most Mormons followed Brigham Young west, calling themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Other variations of Mormonism include Mormon fundamentalism, which seeks to maintain practices and doctrines such as polygamy that were abandoned by the LDS Church, and various other small independent denominations.The word Mormon is derived from the Book of Mormon, one of the faith's religious texts. Based on the name of that book, early followers of founder Joseph Smith, Jr. Were called Mormons, and their faith was called Mormonism. The term was initially considered pejorative, but is no longer considered so by Mormons.Mormonism shares a common set of beliefs with the rest of the Latter Day Saint movement, including use of, and belief in, the Bible, as well as other religious texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. It also accepts the Pearl of Great Price as part of its scriptural canon, and has a history of teaching eternal marriage, eternal progression, and plural marriage, although the LDS Church formally abandoned the practice in 1891. Cultural Mormonism includes a lifestyle promoted by the Mormon institutions, and includes cultural Mormons who identify with the culture, but not necessarily the theology   more
34 votes


31 votes


19 votes


Judaism is the religion, philosophy and way of life of the Jewish people. Judaism is a monotheistic religion, with its foundational text, the Torah, and supplemental oral tradition represented by later texts such as the Mishnah and the Talmud. Judai... sm is considered by religious Jews to be the expression of the covenantal relationship God established with the Children of Israel.Judaism includes a wide corpus of texts, practices, theological positions, and forms of organization. Within Judaism there are a variety of movements, most of which emerged from Rabbinic Judaism, which holds that God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah. Historically, this assertion was challenged by various groups such as the Sadducees and Hellenistic Judaism during the Second Temple period; the Karaites and Sabbateans during the early and later medieval period; and among segments of the modern reform movements. Liberal movements in modern times such as Humanistic Judaism may be nontheistic. Today, the largest Jewish religious movements are Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism. Major sources of difference between these groups are their approaches to Jewish law, the authority of the Rabbinic tradition, and the significance of the State of Israel. Orthodox Judaism maintains that the Torah and Jewish law are divine in origin, eternal and unalterable, and that they should be strictly followed. Conservative and Reform Judaism are more liberal, with Conservative Judaism generally promoting a more "traditional" interpretation of Judaism's requirements than Reform Judaism. A typical Reform position is that Jewish law should be viewed as a set of general guidelines rather than as a set of restrictions and obligations whose observance is required of all Jews. Historically, special courts enforced Jewish law; today, these courts still exist but the practice of Judaism is mostly voluntary. Authority on theological and legal matters is not vested in any one person or organization, but in the sacred texts and rabbis and scholars who interpret them   more
17 votes


Hinduism is the dominant religion of the Indian subcontinent, particularly of India and Nepal, which consists of many diverse traditions. It includes Shaivism, Vaishnavism and Shaktism among numerous other traditions, and a wide spectrum of laws and...  prescriptions of "daily morality" based on karma, dharma, and societal norms. Hinduism is a categorisation of distinct intellectual or philosophical points of view, rather than a rigid, common set of beliefs.Hinduism has been called the "oldest religion" in the world, and many practitioners refer to Hinduism as Sanātana Dharma, "the eternal law" or the "eternal way" beyond human origins. It prescribes the "eternal" duties all Hindus have to follow, regardless of class, caste, or sect, such as honesty, purity, and self-restraint.Western scholars regard Hinduism as a fusion or synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions, with diverse roots and no single founder. Among its roots are the Vedic religion of the late Vedic period and its emphasis on the status of Brahmans, but also the religions of the Indus Valley Civilisation, the Sramana or renouncer traditions of north-east India, and "popular or local traditions". This "Hindu synthesis" emerged around the beginning of the Common Era, and co-existed for several centuries with Buddhism, to finally gain the upper hand in most royal circles during the 8th century CE   more
16 votes


Wicca is a modern pagan, witchcraft religion. It was developed in England during the first half of the 20th century and it was introduced to the public in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. It draws upon a diverse set of ancien... t pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice. The word witch derives from Middle English wicche, Old English wicce "witch" and wicca "wizzard".Wicca is a diverse religion with no central authority or figure defining it. It is divided into various lineages and denominations, referred to as traditions, each with its own organisational structure and level of centralisation. Due to its decentralized nature, there is some disagreement over what actually constitutes Wicca. Some traditions, collectively referred to as British Traditional Wicca, strictly follow the initiatory lineage of Gardner and consider the term Wicca to apply only to such lineaged traditions, while other eclectic traditions do not.Wicca is typically duotheistic, worshipping a god and goddess traditionally viewed as a mother goddess and horned god. These two deities are sometimes viewed as facets of a greater pantheistic godhead. However, beliefs range from hard polytheism to even monotheism. Wiccan celebration follows approximately eight seasonally based festivals known as Sabbats. An unattributed statement known as the Wiccan Rede is the traditional basis of Wiccan morality. Wicca often involves the ritual practice of magic, though it is not always necessary   more
14 votes
1 comment


Buddhism is a nontheistic religion that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, meaning "the awakened one". According to Buddhist tr... adition, the Buddha lived and taught in the eastern part of the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE. He is recognized by Buddhists as an awakened or enlightened teacher who shared his insights to help sentient beings end their suffering through the elimination of ignorance and craving by way of understanding and the seeing of dependent origination, with the ultimate goal of attainment of the sublime state of nirvana.Two major branches of Buddhism are generally recognized: Theravada and Mahayana. Theravada has a widespread following in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia. Mahayana is found throughout East Asia and includes the traditions of Pure Land, Zen, Nichiren Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Shingon, and Tiantai. In some classifications, Vajrayana—practiced mainly in Tibet and Mongolia, and adjacent parts of China and Russia—is recognized as a third branch, while others classify it as a part of Mahayana   more
12 votes

Eastern Orthodox Church

The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church, and also referred to as the Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy, is the second largest Christian church in the world, with an estimated 225–300 million adherents, primarily in th... e Balkans, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It is the religious affiliation of the majority of the populations of Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine; significant minority populations exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon and Syria. It teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission to the disciples almost 2,000 years ago.The Church's structure is composed of several self-governing ecclesial bodies, each geographically distinct but unified in theology and worship. Each self-governing body, often but not always encompassing a nation, is shepherded by a Holy Synod whose duty, among other things, is to preserve and teach the apostolic and patristic traditions and related church practices. Like the Catholic Church, Anglican Communion, Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy and some other churches, Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the apostles through the process of apostolic succession   more
7 votes
1 comment


Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, beginning in 1952 as a successor to his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Hubbard characterized Scientology as a religion, and in 1953 incorp... orated the Church of Scientology in Camden, New Jersey.Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature. Its method of spiritual rehabilitation is a type of counselling known as auditing, in which practitioners aim to consciously re-experience painful or traumatic events in their past in order to free themselves of their limiting effects. Study materials and auditing sessions are made available to members on a fee-for-service basis, which the church describes as a "fixed donation". Scientology is legally recognized as a tax-exempt religion in the United States, Italy, South Africa, Australia, Sweden, New Zealand, Portugal and Spain; the Church of Scientology emphasizes this as proof that it is a bona fide religion. In contrast, the organization is considered a commercial enterprise in Switzerland, a cult in France and Chile, and a non-profit in Norway, and its legal classification is often a point of contention   more
7 votes
1 comment


Shinto, also kami-no-michi, is the indigenous spirituality of Japan and the people of Japan. It is a set of practices, to be carried out diligently, to establish a connection between present-day Japan and its ancient past. Founded in 660 BC, Shinto ... practices were first recorded and codified in the written historical records of the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki in the 8th century. Still, these earliest Japanese writings do not refer to a unified "Shinto religion", but rather to disorganized folklore, history, and mythology. Shinto today is a term that applies to public shrines suited to various purposes such as war memorials, harvest festivals, romance, and historical monuments, as well as various sectarian organizations. Practitioners express their diverse beliefs through a standard language and practice, adopting a similar style in dress and ritual, dating from around the time of the Nara and Heian Periods.The word Shinto was adopted from the written Chinese, combining two kanji: "shin", meaning "spirit" or kami; and "tō", meaning a philosophical path or study. Kami are defined in English as "spirits", "essences" or "deities", that are associated with many understood formats; in some cases being human-like, in others being animistic, and others being associated with more abstract "natural" forces in the world. Kami and people are not separate; they exist within the same world and share its interrelated complexity   more
4 votes

Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses is a millenarian restorationist Christian denomination with nontrinitarian beliefs distinct from mainstream Christianity. According to the 2014 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, as of August 2013, the organization reports worldwid... e membership of over 7.9 million adherents involved in evangelism, convention attendance of over 14 million, and annual Memorial attendance of over 19.2 million. They are directed by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of elders in Brooklyn, New York, that establishes all doctrines. Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are based on their interpretations of the Bible and they prefer to use their own translation, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. They believe that the destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and that the establishment of God's kingdom on earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humanity.The group emerged from the Bible Student movement—founded in the late 1870s by Charles Taze Russell with the formation of Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society—with significant organizational and doctrinal changes under the leadership of Joseph Franklin Rutherford. The name Jehovah's witnesses, based on Isaiah 43:10–12, was adopted in 1931 to distinguish themselves from other Bible Student groups and symbolize a break with the legacy of Russell's traditions   more
4 votes
1 comment


4 votes
1 comment


Sikhism, or known in Punjabi as Sikhi, is a monotheistic religion founded during the 15th century in the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent, by Guru Nanak and continued to progress through the ten successive Sikh gurus. It is the fifth-largest...  organized religion in the world, with approximately 30 million adherents. Punjab, India is the only state in the world with a majority Sikh population.Adherents of Sikhism are known as Sikhs. According to Devinder Singh Chahal, "The word 'Sikhi' gave rise to the modern anglicized word 'Sikhism' for the modern world." Gurmat means literally 'wisdom of the Guru' in contrast to Manmat, or self-willed impulses.According to Sewa Singh Kalsi, "The central teaching in Sikhism is the belief in the concept of the oneness of God." Sikhism considers spiritual life and secular life to be intertwined. Guru Nanak, the first Sikh Guru established the system of the Langar, or communal kitchen, in order to demonstrate the need to share and have equality between all people. Sikhs also believe that "all religious traditions are equally valid and capable of enlightening their followers". In addition to sharing with others Guru Nanak inspired people to earn an honest living without exploitation and also the need for remembrance of the divine name. Guru Nanak described living an "active, creative, and practical life" of "truthfulness, fidelity, self-control and purity" as being higher than a purely contemplative life. Guru Hargobind, the sixth Sikh Guru, established the political/temporal and spiritual realms to be mutually coexistent   more
3 votes


Taoism is a philosophical, ethical, and religious tradition of Chinese origin that emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao. The term Tao means "way", "path" or "principle", and can also be found in Chinese philosophies and religions other than Tao... ism. In Taoism, however, Tao denotes something that is both the source and the driving force behind everything that exists. It is ultimately ineffable: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."While Taoism drew its cosmological notions from the tenets of the School of Yin Yang, its keystone work is widely regarded to be the Tao Te Ching, a compact and ambiguous book containing teachings attributed to Laozi. Together with the writings of Zhuangzi, these two texts build the philosophical foundation of Taoism. This philosophical Taoism, individualistic by nature, is not institutionalized.Institutionalized forms, however, evolved over time in the shape of a number of different schools. Taoist schools traditionally feature reverence for Laozi, immortals or ancestors, along with a variety of divination and exorcism rituals, and practices for achieving ecstasy, longevity or immortality   more
3 votes


Pentecostalism or Classical Pentecostalism is a renewal movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on a direct personal experience of God through the baptism with the Holy Spirit. The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, the Gr... eek name for the Jewish Feast of Weeks. For Christians, this event commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ, as described in the second chapter of the Book of Acts.Like other forms of evangelical Protestantism, Pentecostalism adheres to the inerrancy of scripture and the necessity of accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior. It is distinguished by belief in the baptism with the Holy Spirit as an experience separate from conversion that enables a Christian to live a Holy Spirit–filled and empowered life. This empowerment includes the use of spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues and divine healing—two other defining characteristics of Pentecostalism. Because of their commitment to biblical authority, spiritual gifts, and the miraculous, Pentecostals tend to see their movement as reflecting the same kind of spiritual power and teachings that were found in the Apostolic Age of the early church. For this reason, some Pentecostals also use the term Apostolic or full gospel to describe their movement   more
2 votes


1 vote

Seventh-day Adventist Church

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Protestant Christian denomination distinguished by its observance of Saturday, the original seventh day of the Judeo-Christian week, as the Sabbath, and by its emphasis on the imminent second coming of Jesus Chr... ist. The denomination grew out of the Millerite movement in the United States during the middle part of the 19th century and was formally established in 1863. Among its founders was Ellen G. White, whose extensive writings are still held in high regard by the church today.Much of the theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church corresponds to Protestant Christian teachings such as the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. Distinctive teachings include the unconscious state of the dead and the doctrine of an investigative judgment. The church is also known for its emphasis on diet and health, its "holistic" understanding of the person, its promotion of religious liberty, and its conservative principles and lifestyle.The world church is governed by a General Conference, with smaller regions administered by divisions, union conferences and local conferences. It currently has a worldwide baptized membership of about 18.02 million people. As of May 2007, it was the twelfth-largest religious body in the world, and the sixth-largest highly international religious body. It has a missionary presence in over 200 countries and territories and is ethnically and culturally diverse. The church operates numerous schools, hospitals and publishing houses worldwide, as well as a humanitarian aid organization known as the Adventist Development and Relief Agency   more
1 vote

Rastafari movement

The Rastafari movement is an African-based spiritual ideology that arose in the 1930s in Jamaica. It is sometimes described as a religion but is considered by many adherents to be a "Way of Life". Its adherents worship Haile Selassie I, Emperor of E... thiopia, some as Jesus in his Second Advent, or as God the Father. Members of the Rastafari way of life are known as Rastas, or the Rastafari. The way of life is sometimes referred to as "Rastafarianism", but this term is considered derogatory and offensive by most Rastafari, who, being highly critical of "isms", dislike being labelled as an "ism" themselves.The name Rastafari is taken from Ras Tafari, the title and first name of Haile Selassie I before the coronation. In Amharic, Ras, literally "head", is an Ethiopian title equivalent to prince or chief, while the personal given name Täfäri means one who is respected or feared. Jah is a Biblical name of God, from a shortened form of Jahweh or Jehovah found in Psalms 68:4 in the King James Version of the Bible. Most adherents see Haile Selassie I as Jah or Jah Rastafari, an incarnation of God the Father, the Second Advent of Christ the Anointed One, i.e. the Second Coming of Jesus Christ the King to Earth   more
1 vote

Hare Krishna

The Hare Krishna mantra, also referred to reverentially as the Maha Mantra, is a 16-word Vaishnava mantra which first appeared in the Kali-Santarana Upanishad, and which from the 15th century rose to importance in the Bhakti movement following the t... eachings of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.According to Gaudiya Vaishnava theology, one's original consciousness and goal of life is pure love of God. Since the 1960s, the mantra has been made well known outside of India by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and his International Society for Krishna Consciousness   more
1 vote


Jainism, traditionally known as Jaina dharma, is an Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life. Practitioners believe that non-violenc... e and self-control are the means by which they can obtain liberation. Currently, Jainism is divided into two major sects —Digambara and Śvētāmbara.The word Jainism is derived from a Sanskrit verb Jin which means to conquer. It refers to a battle with the passions and bodily pleasures that the jaina ascetics undertake. Those who win this battle are termed as Jina. The term Jaina is therefore used to refer to laymen and ascetics of this tradition alike.Jainism is one of the oldest religions in the world. Jains traditionally trace their history through a succession of twenty-four propagators of their faith known as tirthankara with Ādinātha as the first tirthankara and Mahāvīra as the last of the current era. For long periods of time Jainism was the state religion of Indian kingdoms and widely adopted in the Indian subcontinent. The religion has been in decline since the 8th century CE due to the growth of, and oppression by the followers of Hinduism and Islam   more
1 vote

Religious Society of Friends

Quakerism originated in mid-17th century England, originally as abreak-away branch of Puritanism. George Fox (1624-1691), an Englishpreacher, founded the Society of Friends, whose open structure reflectshis aversion to church hierarchy and titles. F... ox held that the “InnerLight,” the inspiring presence of God in each person, stands aboveScripture and creed. This belief resonates through Quakerism despite afairly wide variety of practices.Quaker beliefs include the emphasis on plain speech and dress;opposition to slavery and war; and the refusal to swear oaths, whichQuakers believe undermine the daily mandate for truth-telling. Manyearly feminists and abolitionists were Quakers, and a strong socialethic continues to pervade the work of the American Friends ServiceCommittee, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.Quakers, who often met persecution for their beliefs, have also beenchampions of religious freedom. English Quaker William Penn foundedPennsylvania as a "holy experiment," a refuge for Quakers and otherreligious minorities. Quaker congregations are called "meetings," which range from structuredservices led by ministers to open sessions where participants speakwhen inspired by their own Inner Light. Major Quaker umbrellaorganizations are the Friends General Conference of Philadelphia andFriends United Meeting, based in Richmond, Indiana, and Evangelical Friends International in Ohio   more
1 vote
1 comment


Confucianism, literally "The School of the Scholars," is a Chinese ethical and philosophical system originally developed from the teachings of the early Chinese sage Confucius. Confucianism is a complex system of moral, social, political, philosophi... cal, and religious thought which has had tremendous influence on the history of Chinese civilization up to the 21st century. Some people in the West have considered it to have been the "state religion" of Imperial China because of the Chinese government's promotion of Confucianist values   more
1 vote
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T20:14:37.9654404-06:00
The Judeo-Christian Worldview is the correct one. Jesus is the promised Messiah.
sailing says2014-02-24T20:15:06.5290404-06:00
Whats that
TheCreationist says2014-02-24T20:18:36.8321328-06:00
Judeo-Christian, quite obviously.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T20:18:45.6884937-06:00
As an atheist, I do enjoy buddhist philosophy if not faith.
armyg says2014-02-24T20:22:24.8216937-06:00
There is a little truth in every religonthough i am an athiest myself(: and y would an amish person be on here? Lol
VaLoR says2014-02-24T20:29:57.5709687-06:00
All this poll really constitutes is a poll of what religions the members of this website practice. After all, it's not based on any shred of logic or evidence conceivable -- only faith. And where did this certainty come from? It just happens to be extremely highly correlated with the religion of their parents and/or close friends growing up. What a coincidence that their loved ones happened to be right after all! What a coincidence, indeed....
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:31:19.7300937-06:00
Janet, there is no evidence Jesus actually existed, much of the Bible has been disproved, therefore Christianity is not the right religion.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-24T20:33:01.0052937-06:00
There's a 3D pizza-making printer that "they" want to use for going in outerspace. O.O
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:34:16.5716937-06:00
Snip, you cant claim a religion to be wrong when you don't have one.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:37:17.1945687-06:00
You can claim a religion to be wrong if the prominent idea behind it does not exist. It is not a matter of having a religion, it is a matter of truth or fiction. No eye-witness acounts for Jesus exist, Nazareth did not exist during his life, etc. Jesus has no evidence that he existed, therefore it is logical to say he did not exist, therefore Christianity is wrong.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:38:01.8729687-06:00
Prove that it is WRONG
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-24T20:38:47.2004937-06:00
There's a 3D chocolate printer too. >.<
Legitdebater says2014-02-24T20:39:15.3489687-06:00
Lol, I'm really hoping someone puts scientology.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T20:40:08.6012937-06:00
Rebel, that commits the burden of proof fallacy. Prove to me that there is not a magic teapot with a genie inside orbiting the sun between the earth and mars. Oh, and it just so happens to be invisible to all telescopes we currently have at our disposal. Good luck.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:40:25.6832937-06:00
Wrong means "not correct or true". If Jesus did not exist, which there is no evidence that he did, the New Testament is fiction. If the New Testament is fiction then the beliefs of Christianity lies in fiction. If the beliefs of a religion lie in fiction than the religion is not true. Not true is the definition of wrong. Christianity is wrong.
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-24T20:41:11.5682641-06:00
How about you prove that it is right. -_-
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:43:25.8632937-06:00
VaLor, if there were then it would freeze and fly out of orbit landing on another planet crushing the teapot killing the genie.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-24T20:44:12.8348937-06:00
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-24T20:44:38.1536937-06:00
Sry "Argumentum ad ignorantiam"
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:45:45.1938377-06:00
No one knows who you are talking to ESocial...
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:46:39.9656970-06:00
Stalin M, I'm Jewish, I have no intentions of proving Christianity to be correct I just want to know why it is wrong, btw I asked first so.....
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T20:46:45.9020937-06:00
I do. For you to say that you must of had to ask everyone, right?
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:48:00.8288937-06:00
Does it mean argument and ignorance?
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:49:01.4732970-06:00
Do people understand that in a comment section where there are many people commenting that you need to include a name in your comment when talking to someone in order to know who is being talked to? It is really annoying when people just expect you to magically know who is being talked to.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:49:39.2876970-06:00
Rebel: It means argument from ignorance.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:49:52.1348937-06:00
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T20:49:57.4616970-06:00
Well my comment is right under yours. Unless your short on brain cells, you'll get along fine.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:51:15.6884937-06:00
Directly under means nothing on the world of the internet, and it is right under Rebel's, not mine.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T20:52:08.8448970-06:00
Did you know I was addressing you? Yes? Well there you go.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T20:53:59.5664937-06:00
Rebel, the idea that it would spontaneously come out of orbit to crash into a planet is at odds with basic physics. That would only occur if the orbit was already irregular and it became perturbed by a large celestial body. Moreover, even if it had crashed on another planet and "killed" the supernatural genie, this would not disprove its existence.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T20:54:28.5200937-06:00
Actually I did not KNOW you were addressing me with your first comment because it was not specific to a person. The following one obviously was addressing the comment I made so I could assume that it was addressed to me.
Macgreggor says2014-02-24T20:54:50.7344937-06:00
Macgreggor says2014-02-24T20:55:08.2064937-06:00
Esocial LOL
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T20:55:25.7564937-06:00
The fact that a genie exists odds the basic laws of physics, thus if one exists physics wouldn't
VaLoR says2014-02-24T20:57:34.9868937-06:00
Oh, but Jesus walking on water is not at odds with laws of physics? I think you're finally seeing my point. ;-)
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-24T20:58:05.0234600-06:00
Actually, it means you don't have evidence to prove that something exists or doesn't exist.
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-24T20:59:50.2585717-06:00
Rebel, do you not know how to take a picture correctly? As every picture that you took of yourself has been upside down. Guess it shows how smart you really are. XD
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T21:00:12.4142198-06:00
Ive seen your point from the beginning, but at least we have texts confirming those things.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-24T21:01:16.1081232-06:00
No, I took it right side up but it always comes out upside down
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:02:15.2652192-06:00
Actually, official government documents about those Crucified, official government documents about cities, official documents about cult and religious movements, etc. all exist, yet none mention Jesus. If Jesus was real then he would have been mentioned in at least one of those many types of documents, but he does not appear in them. That is evidence that he probably did not exist, therefore it is logical to conclude that Jesus did not exist.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:04:36.1659484-06:00
Rebel: We do NOT have texts proving Jesus existed. He is most likely a fictional character from fiction writings that attempted, and sadly succeeded, in forming a religion.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:04:48.5525138-06:00
There is no evidence either way. Atheists have no evidence that god does not exist, and Christians have no evidence that god exists. The only proof comes from the holy spirit.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T21:05:47.1615484-06:00
Texts confirming what? The various religious texts we have are riddled with factual errors and reflect the culture in which they were written. They are not credible to anyone but those that accept them on pure faith alone. I could write a gospel of the flying spaghetti monster right now. How are people to know whether it is true or not thousands of years hence? They can't. They must cast their reason aside and take a leap of faith. As if charlatans did not exist in antiquity...
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:07:16.0826595-06:00
Christians have everything to gain and little to lose. Even agnostics realize this.
TheCreationist says2014-02-24T21:08:25.4560323-06:00
Everyone who doesn't believe in God must believe in a flying, pink toaster. It doesn't make any sense at all to not believe in God
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:09:17.3416323-06:00
You should at least stay open minded to the idea, because if your wrong, then there is no second chance.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T21:10:13.1584323-06:00
Jifpop -- atheists don't require evidence since it is the default mode of unbiased understanding of the universe. Believe nothing until there is substantial evidence. The null hypothesis of peer review ethics. Either evidence rejects the null hypothesis, or the evidence fails to reject the null hypothesis. Affirmative conclusions are not derived from a failure to reject the null. Disbelief is not synonymous with a belief of non-existence. That is fallacious.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:12:38.0015564-06:00
No, but you need evidence to *prove* to people god is not real, correct? All I'm saying is you should at least be open minded, or you'll be stubborn.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T21:15:50.4624455-06:00
Jifpop, no. I can claim there are invisible fairies in my garden. Is the potential existence of these fairies equally probable to their potential non-existence based purely on the fact that they can't be disproven? It's an argument from ignorance fallacy. Positions are not afforded equal probability on the basis of ignorance alone!
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-24T21:16:24.7984857-06:00
Jifpop, Christians lose a lot actually. They waste their one and only life on a made up lie. They spend countless hours reading a book that doesn't matter, giving themselves false hope and happiness, going to church and church serves for countless hours, not working on days they could, not loving and experiencing love at a younger age, etc, etc ,etc.
Stalin_Mario says2014-02-24T21:17:01.5791579-06:00
*Church service.... Not serves
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:17:04.3715937-06:00
You are arguing that you should be ignorant to all unlikely scenarios. This is stubborn. You should keep a open mind to every new revelation. It is a good trait to have.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:19:53.3574785-06:00
Reading a book and going to church 1 day a week (for a hour) is little loss compared to the afterlife. I can not prove to you that god exists, as the only proof lies in the holy spirit, but I can assure you that a little dedication has hurt no one. It actually builds values. PS: No one is stopping you from loving someone.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T21:21:19.9062785-06:00
Jifpop, I never argued that I should be "ignorant" to all unlikely scenarios. Quite the exact opposite, in fact. I stated quiet clearly that I will refuse to accept tall tales until such time as evidence is prevented to support them. If I told you I could bench 900 pounds, you are going to consider it improbable until you see it *put to the test* (i.E. Scientific evidence). Conversely, to accept such claims or consider them equally probable on ignorance alone is stubborn and fallacious. As an atheist, I am completely open to the existence of God. There just so happens to be no evidence whatsoever to support such an extraordinary claim.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:23:54.2642767-06:00
No one is asking you to accept them immediately. Just keep a open mind. I really don't see how this statement is causing you guys to rebut.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:27:30.8430785-06:00
I never tried disproving God, I was disproving a specific religion by showing that where there SHOULD be evidence for Jesus, who "interacted" with the world directly, there is NO evidence. Also, pascal's wager is flawed. There are an infinite amount of possible gods, including ones that like atheists better than theists. How do you know one of them is not the real god? I personally do not think that god exists, but that god is just as likely as any other god.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:29:06.8454785-06:00
As I said, the evidence exists in the holy spirit. As for his interaction with the world, what if he desired there not to be any physical proof *MIND BLOW*
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:30:15.6530767-06:00
I have an open mind about god(s), but with no evidence to support any of them I choose not to believe in them. I do not say there are no gods, but I do not believe there are any. Show me evidence that there is a god and I will consider the possibility. Now Jif, why not keep an open mind about the possibility of there being no god? Or a god that only likes atheists?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:31:41.3278429-06:00
There were the 500 witnesses and the various people who wrote of his existence though. Do they not count as historical accounts. Why deny records of Jesus, but not records of ancient Rome or Greece?
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:31:56.9433428-06:00
Then that would be a deceptive god, a deceptive god is not a benevolent god, a god that is not benevolent is not worth worshipping *mind unblown*
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:33:20.2056501-06:00
I do keep a open mind. I question myself and my religion all the time. It is a very personal and serious thing for me. I have not blindly followed Christ and I have determined my path right. Why make that assumption?
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:34:05.4459401-06:00
500 witnesses that were talked about in the Gospels that were not written until decades after Jesus's supposed death? The countless forged documents that date to after Jesus's death? The many people born after Jesus's death that talk about him? Ya, very convincing evidence you got there.
GodChoosesLife says2014-02-24T21:35:52.0051278-06:00
That's a contradiction though... How can you say that there are no "gods" yet don't believe? Where do you get this idea? Evidentially you do believe but reject to believe because of your choice. Not because there's no evidence. Anyone can make up all the excuses in the world to deny something but point is, God is there. Small analogy: say your standing in the middle of the street, right? A truck is coming at full speed and you know the risks yet in your rejection you say nah that truck ain't gonna hit me. Guess what? BOOM!! Your dead... Just cause you don't believe doesn't mean it's not there in which with God just cause you wanna deny Him doesn't mean He isn't there.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:36:38.7949231-06:00
If you consider the possibility of there being no god you would almost certainly research the validity of the books you follow, and you bringing up the 500 "witnesses" after I said that shows that you have not researched from secular sources when the Gospels were written. They were not even written by eye-witnesses, yet you believe them to be accounts for Jesus's life.
Actionsspeak says2014-02-24T21:36:51.1139067-06:00
@SNP1 thank you for being logical I don't care if people speculate wildly to attempt and explain the universe its cause and why if god exists he wouldn't interact with what he made. But their is no proof, and their will never be proof about religion however Christian have a trump card with the god is an invisible spirit thing because then science can't prove the claim false meaning even when the evolution debate ends (which it seems to already have died in fact) creationists can still say "well, you can't prove god doesn't exist since you can't view his existence."
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:37:02.4239792-06:00
Well all I'm saying is that there was certainly a lot of discussion on Christ before and after his death. Which points to something happening at that time. Once again, the proof is in the holy spirit... *Yawn*
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:39:07.9262050-06:00
... And you can not effectively prove he does not exist. Debating the subject is pointless until one side gets evidence. Which evidence already exists in the holy spirit.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:39:24.9770050-06:00
GodChooseLife. It is simple, I am an agnostic atheist. I see no evidence for or against the existence of gods, so I choose not to believe the claims made by theists. At the same time I will not say that there are no gods because that is a knowledge claim. My knowledge claim is that I do not know, my belief is that there are no gods. It is not a contradiction at all. Athesim is NOT a knowledge claim, Anti-theism is.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:41:02.0714050-06:00
You actually just admitted what I was trying to explain ( not well apparently). It is illogical to NOT keep a open mind. I justify my beliefs through spiritual evidence.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:43:09.5282016-06:00
Jif: Holy spirit is not proven, therefore the holy spirit cannot be considered evidence. Actionsspeak: Thank you for the thank you. Godchooseslife: But we understand that the universe is possible without a god, and if a god will only let me into heaven because I kissed his *** all the time then sign me up for hell. A god should put people into heaven based off their actions. I lead a good life, I do good deeds. If there is a god, and that god would send me to hell for doing good actions while not filling his ego then I do not want anything to do with that god.
Actionsspeak says2014-02-24T21:43:10.1783965-06:00
@jifpop09 You said: "Jifpop09 saysFebruary 24 2014 10:29 PM Report Post As I said, the evidence exists in the holy spirit. As for his interaction with the world, what if he desired there not to be any physical proof *MIND BLOW*" Their is no evidence, and why have the *MIND BLOW* part if you're not trolling?
missmedic says2014-02-24T21:44:09.9104136-06:00
Man has invented thousands of gods over thousands of years and all have been myths. Its easy to see this because the gods are never better then the men that invented them. Except maybe Santa, I know Santa is not real but he taught us that millions can all believe is the same thing, and all of them be wrong. Gods are imaginary.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T21:45:12.5030016-06:00
What can be stated without evidence can be rejected without evidence. That is why.
Actionsspeak says2014-02-24T21:47:22.1234016-06:00
Everyone stop, you may hurt the poor christian's feeling
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T21:50:23.5051687-06:00
@SNP1 Then you are not really an atheist, your an agnostic. You don't know, and you withold belief as well as non-belief until one side gives evidence that shows that God exists/does not exist.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:52:19.8975148-06:00
The holy spirit contacts you personally. It is not a big wave of energy floating in the sky. There will likely ever be no physical evidence, because that is the way it is desired. Do you constantly pray and ask for guidance? If not, I do not see why the holy spirit would interact with you (not a direct interaction). Religion is a leap of faith and I went through MANY doubts and struggles to reach the confirmation I have today. I was never a blind follower. 1. God does not have a ego. Evident when Jesus said that you can blasphemy me... But never blasphemy the holy spirit. 2. I was engaging in theological discussion actions speak. If I was trolling it would be a lot more evident. That was a failed attempt to add humor to a heated debate. Don't let it go to your head.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:54:19.6749247-06:00
Janet: WRONG! Agnosticism is a KNOWLEDGE claim, atheism is a BELIEF/DISBELIEF. I do not believe there are any gods, but I do not see evidence for or against. Look up strong and weak atheism. People like to bend the word agnosticism.
Actionsspeak says2014-02-24T21:54:48.3109332-06:00
@jifpop09 You said: "There will likely ever be no physical evidence" So you admit it, their is absolutely no evidence it's all just your imagination and presuming he exists off your thoughts
SNP1 says2014-02-24T21:55:20.4001332-06:00
Jif: Let me guess, if you believe hard enough you will know. If you do not know yet you just need to believe more. Am I right?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:56:47.9941332-06:00
As a reader of the bible, I feel the lord does not intend for physical evidence. When he said "blessed our those who believe without seeing". This is just a theological analysis and prediction I made.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T21:59:40.4577247-06:00
No, the lord shares what knowledge or what gifts he has at his own discretion. Many people will likely reach their death beds without any confirmation. I do not claim to understand a unknowable being, but from the experiences I had, I know I owe him everything. And yes you are confused on the word agnosticism. It means you are open to the possibility of a deity.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T22:01:34.1442122-06:00
Well that long comment got moderated. In short, I do not claim to understand a unknowable being. To believe in god, means that you believe in something with a lot more wisdom then you can possess.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T22:03:51.4233322-06:00
@SNP1 Agnosticism is not a knowledge claim. Agnostics withold knowledge until either the atheist or theist gives some + reasons for thinking their view is right. Oxford Dictionary says: Agnostic- "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." Your only justified in your belief of atheism, if that belief you hold is true. So my question for you is do you believe the proposition "There is no God" to be true or false? If it's true, then give some + reasons for thinking that it's false. If it's false, then you admit you can't prove the non-existence of God.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T22:05:16.7270000-06:00
It seems that the christian voter are slightly less vocal. Maybe I should adhere to my own beliefs and not argue a pointless war,
SNP1 says2014-02-24T22:05:35.1662000-06:00
Jif: Definition of agnostic "a person who believes that nothing is known about the existence of God" That is a KNOWLEDGE claim. Definition of atheism "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" That is a belief. This means that as an agnostic atheist I do not believe there is evidence for or against the existence of God, but choose not to believe in him. Use the real words, not your made up versions of them
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T22:06:06.3936670-06:00
Jifpop09 says2014-02-24T22:06:14.3534000-06:00
SNP1 says2014-02-24T22:06:27.1883337-06:00
Janet: withholding knowledge is still basing it off of knowledge. Atheism is not based off knowledge but belief. They are still compatible.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T22:10:08.1194000-06:00
@SNP1 I'm using the Oxford dictionary, not my own words. I even provided the link. An agnostic does not belive, nor disbelieve God. They are "neutral". They're on the sideline until the Atheist or the Theist gives some more evidence to show that their view is true. What your affirming is agnosticism. You don't know until I the Theist can give some positive reasons for the existence of God. One should not assume atheism in the absence of evidence.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T22:10:18.5402000-06:00
I have to get some sleep. I would love to stay here and play with you guys, bending the definitions in order to try and make a point, but I gotta get some shut eye. My tip for you is this. Look up strong and weak atheism. You are on the internet, there is a little website called google. It can help a lot. The only people that seriously seem to say you cannot be an agnostic atheist seem to be theists. Well, see you tomorrow, and remember that google is your friend.
SNP1 says2014-02-24T22:10:54.6862042-06:00
BTW, it is impossible to both not believe and not disbelieve in something as the definition of disbelieve is to not believe. That means that what you have said is a contradiction.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T22:15:43.5506000-06:00
@SNP1 It's impossible to maintain the position of agnosticism forever. But it's not impossible to believe and disbelieve something. I will have to arrange a debate with you on this
VaLoR says2014-02-24T22:16:02.1163846-06:00
Janet, you are constructing a false dichotomy. There are not just 2 options (or 3 including neutrality). Both options are not equally probable. If I say I can bench press 900 pounds, it is either true or not. However, absent evidence one way or the other, we must make judgments on probability based on the evidence we do have. Surely if I claimed there are invisible, undetectable fairies in my garden you would agree that this claim is not on equal footing with the skeptical option. So it is with grandiose religious claims that have no verifiable justification to speak of.
GodChoosesLife says2014-02-24T22:17:48.8654000-06:00
SNP1, I'm sorry, but any good deed is evidence in itself to God's existence. But your just taking credit for it because deny God. It's that simple.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-24T22:24:55.0432089-06:00
@Valor No I'm not. I agree there are only two options. An agnostic can't maintain" I don't know forever. "They will eventually fall of the fence to one side or the other. I'm simply saying that absence of evidence= evidence of absence. There are only 2 cases in which that statement does apply, but logically speaking, you must refrain from disbelief/belief until further evidence is given. If your an atheist, then your answer should be" There is evidence against the existence of God",etc. Not "Lack of evidence". Epistemology is where we draw the line here.
VaLoR says2014-02-24T23:46:32.4620987-06:00
Janet, as I have repeatedly proven, that is a false dichotomy. I am an atheist. I consider the two possibilities UNequally probable. Yet, I am an "agnostic" by your narrow and simplistic standards and semantics. The evidence in favor of God is just as strong/weak as the evidence of invisible fairies in my garden. Until there is evidence, I will maintain the objective null hypothesis that has brought about the prosperity that allows you to use a computer to articulate your thoughts to the world. If we were to consider every nonsensical claim as equally probable, we would still be living in the dark ages. Evidence matters, and none of it, as of yet, supports theology. Atheism is the default mode of unbiased reasoning -- not agnosticism.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-24T23:48:48.1285996-06:00
I think that all current Religions are wrong. I am not stating that Religion is wrong, there may be a creator. But fighting each other, oppressing, killing, stealing, Worshiping, sacrificing, etc is something Religion shouldn't make you do. It should be a curious way to look at the world and think " I wonder what made that ".
VaLoR says2014-02-24T23:51:01.2398409-06:00
GodChoosesLife, you are entitled to your faith the same as a child is entitled to his/her belief in santa claus and the easter bunny. The level and standards of evidence are the same. However, the assumption that good deeds are only explainable as supernatural forces displays a complete lack of understanding of biology, genetics and psychology (human or otherwise).
SNP1 says2014-02-25T07:48:42.1424643-06:00
Wow, thank you for continuing this after I had to go VaLoR. You have brought up almost exactly what I would have brought up. Janet, definition alone says that if you do not believe something that you disbelieve it. I will not debate someone on a clear cut definition.
abraralam says2014-02-25T11:35:10.8281838-06:00
We all human beings are naturally one, then who divided us and made us enemies of each others? There are many religious books in world like the Torah for Jews, the Bible for Christians, the Veda for Hindus and Holy Quran for Muslims. And there are many religions in world also like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism and Parsi ism and Atheism. There are Millions differences among their thinking, logic, books, beliefs and life styles. Their all followers claim that they are only the followers of true and other all are followers of false, canceled, or incomplete religions. In this situation if a neutral person wants to accept any books or any religions as a guidance for finding the right path to the God who created this universe, then it will be very difficult for him to choose any religions and any books from them. Further there are wars by these religious differences in world since centuries and millions innocent women and children murdered by these wars directly or indirectly. I think the wars are reason for poverty and illiteracy also in 75% human beings in world. I think if there was any one books and any one religions in whole world, there shouldn't be above important problems for human beings and this world should be like a Paradise, while at this time it is like a Hell. So we 7 Billion human beings should assemble on these three steps. (1) We should choose 70 expert religious leaders from the religion Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, and Jainism who have control on whole world through United Nations. (2) We should Say them to research and choose any one religions from above religions, because they all say that any one of them is true surely near to the God who created this universe. (3) Then we all should accept that religion and leave other all religions. Because we all are basically from one father and mother. The God creator is one. The system of this universe is one. The behavior of natures also is one. (4) Without it, we can't establish the peace in world forever, we can’t stop the bomb blast forever, we can’t stop the wars and atomic wars forever, we can’t finish the poverty and illiteracy from the world forever, and we can’t solve the other big and important problems of all human beings too. Because the presence of many religions at a time in world is reason of wars, poverty, illiteracy and destruction of the human beings. (5) According to my deeply research and thinking the natures like the Earth, the Fire, the Air, the water and the human bodies obeys only God of Islam or true followers of God of Islam. They do not obey another Gods or followers of other Gods.
abraralam says2014-02-25T11:38:00.8837838-06:00
According to Holy Quran the God of Islam Almighty Allah saved Prophet Abraham (Ibrahim, peace be upon him) in big fire of a Non-Muslim “Nimrod”. Holy Quran Surah no 21 verse no 51 to 70. And we had certainly given Ibrahim (Abraham) his sound judgment before, and We were of him well-Knowing (51) When he said to his father and his people, "What are these statues to which you are devoted?" (52) They said, "We found our fathers worshipping them." (53) He said, "You were certainly, you and your fathers, in clear misguidance." (54) They said, "Have you come to us with the truth, or are you of the playful (not serious) ones?" (55) He said, "(No), rather, your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the Earth who created them, and I am to that of those who are bear witnessing. (56) And (he said to himself) by Allah, I will surely plan against your idols after you have gone away (from the temple)." (57) So he made them into fragments (destroyed them), except the largest one of them, that they might return to it (for questioning). (58) They said, "Who has done this to our gods? Indeed, he is of the oppressors (wrongdoers)." (59) They said, "We heard a young man mentioning them, who is called Ibrahim." (60) They said, "Then bring him before the eyes of the people, so that they may witness." (61) They said, "Have you done this to our gods, O Ibrahim?" (62) He said, (No, I have not) "Rather, this, the largest of them, did it. So ask them, if they are capable of speaking." (63) So they returned to themselves and said (to each other), "Indeed, you are the oppressors (wrongdoers)." (64) Then they reversed themselves, (saying to him), "You know that these do not speak!" (65) He said, "Do you worship, instead of Allah, that which does not benefit you or harm you anything? (66) Uff (a warning of bad consequences) to you and to what you worship instead of Allah. Do you not reason?" (67) They said, "Burn him and support your gods, if you are to act (for their support)." (68) Allah said, "O fire, be coolness and peace upon Ibrahim." (69) And they wanted to harm him, but We made them the most losers. (70) (Surah Al-Anbiya no 21: verse no 51-70). Commentary: (1) In above verses is that the prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) couldn’t burn in fire by the order of God of Islam. (2) This event proves that the God of Islam has power of control on fire, and the fire obeys to God of Islam. (3) Dear 5 Billion Atheists and Non-Muslims, if you will be agree to convert to religion Islam, we some Muslims can go in big fire without used any chemicals on our bodies in front of world media and we will be saved in it by the order of God of Islam Almighty Allah. (4) If you are agree, then fix a time, a date and a place and announce in whole world for three months before that fix date, because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims on his desire, for proving the truth of Islam, truth of Holy Quran and truth of last prophet hood of Muhammad (pbuh). (5) I challenge forever, that any Atheists and Non-Muslims can’t be ready to enter in big fire in front of world media without used any chemicals on his body for proving the truth of his logic, thinking, book, beliefs and life style. So it is 100% proof that they are walking on wrong path. (6) I challenge also forever, that if some of them will enter in fire without used any chemicals on their bodies, they will not be saved in it, because their beliefs are not right. (7) At last, I request to all Atheists and Non-Muslims, that they enter in Islam or accept my above challenge. (8) There is no third option. Because we all human beings say that all religions are not true, all religions are not false and one religion is only true. But we all human beings couldn’t define to yet that which one is true surely from various religions in world. So test of religions is necessary at this time. Because the presence of many religions at a time in world is basic reason of wars, poverty, illiteracy and other important problems of human beings. (9) Without finishing the all false, incomplete or cancelled religions from the world and without establishing only one true religion in whole world, our all strives for stopping the wars and finishing the poverty and illiteracy from the world will be temporary. (10) The true religion who is Islam only, should be respectable near us but other false, incomplete and cancelled religions are not our Father, mother and relatives that we respect them. So we should leave them for solving the above important problems of human beings. (11) Those mankind who are agree with us, please contact us for serving the all human beings. For more details please study (12) It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. But, look how intransigents are majority of Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam. Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not? If yes, then fix a time, a date and a place and start announcement for three month by electronic and print media in whole world that you all can know the truth of religion Islam and falsehood of all religions, because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims on his desire for proving the truth of Islam.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T11:47:05.3570493-06:00
Abraralam, you have NO EVIDENCE for your claims. All you have are BIASED SITES that DON'T list ANY EVIDENCE. The sites pretty much say to trust them just to trust them with other people of the same faith saying to trust them because they trust them. If you want us to take you seriously, BRING EVIDENCE FROM AN UNBIASED SOURCE, and I mean ACTUAL evidence. Until you do that you are just another internet troll that pisses people off.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:03:42.9275453-06:00
SNP1. Religion Is about faith, not proof, if the whole world had EVIDENCE of a God, then there would be no faith, just proof.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T12:18:22.8000157-06:00
If you have no evidence that something is real, why should you believe in it? There is no evidence that there is a magical, invisible unicorn in my house. Should I believe that it is real? No, I should not believe it is real. There is no evidence that it is. Should I say with certainty that the unicorn does not exist? No, there is no evidence it does not either. A skeptical agnostic atheist seems like the most logical position to hold, so that is the position that I do hold. I am not an anti-theist, I am not a theist, and I do not know for sure if there is or is not a god, but I choose not to believe in a god until evidence is put forward for the existence of one while keeping an open mind about the possible existence of god(s) and being skeptical of any evidence for or against god(s). I find it logical to take this position, and, as a result, I want evidence for anything and everything.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:20:54.6069935-06:00
I would rather believe I'm not an evolved ape made from space dust from an explosion that was trillions of degrees hot but my cells apparently survived this blast and then formed to make a little fish thing then an ape and then evolved into a human without a soul.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T12:22:00.9051568-06:00
Ha. That is the general consensus for many atheists.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T12:23:22.6351285-06:00
I do not think people should blindly follow religion, but not readily deny the possibility. This statement always brings up objections though.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:24:24.0691099-06:00
I have had personal experiences with Christ, I know I cannot prove these, but I know what I believe, and I know what is true.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T12:25:28.4994147-06:00
Yes, me too. It is just impossible to prove your personal experiences.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T12:25:42.3039217-06:00
Rebel: atheism and evolution are 2 different concepts. Evolution is real, we have seen it happening slowly, we have fossil records, ring species, DNA, etc, etc. Atheism is the disbelief in the claims of theists. They are not the same thing. Same for the Big Bang. We do not know what caused the Big Bang yet, but that does not stop it from being real. We have evidence for both the Big Bang and evolution. We do not have evidence for the existence of a god.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:26:40.1019217-06:00
But if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution or the big bang, then you are classified as an idiot.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:29:21.1875217-06:00
Jifpop, I believe one day we will be able to see people's dreams, so that atheism can burn, and especially when Christ comes back, then Atheism along with atheists will burn.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T12:35:53.7139849-06:00
There is evidence for Christ too. You are picky on which to accept.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T12:37:43.8659575-06:00
We do not know what caused the Big Bang yet, but that does not stop it from being real. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another contradiction. We don't know why god exists, but that does not stop him from being real. Do you see you just confirmed half of the arguments we made.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-25T12:37:51.8532599-06:00
I don't think I am picky, I just combine my religions to fit my personality. Messianic Judaism fits me the best.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T13:05:37.8753014-06:00
Actually, there is no evidence that Jesus existed, and the reason why your argument for the existence of God does not work is because there is no evidence for God but there is evidence for the Big Bang. I accept evidence, that is not called being picky.
VaLoR says2014-02-25T13:30:08.8941770-06:00
There is evidence that cigarette smoking may be good for you. The problem is, that evidence is of extremely poor quality and strongly contradicted by the overwhelming body of evidence. Atheists do NOT deny the possibility of God. They simply fail to reject the *null hypothesis* because the evidence is insufficient. That is called being objective and unbiased. To date, efforts of substantiation have *failed to reject* the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is simply the default position on any claim of fact or association. It is why you would not put equal probability on the claim that there are invisible fairies in my garden. Failing to reject the null hypothesis is not equivalent to proving the null hypothesis because, by nature, the null hypothesis may be unprovable (for example, you cannot *prove* that invisible garden fairies *do not* exist, but the existing evidence *fails to reject* the null hypothesis that they *do not* exist). It is NOT a weakness for the null hypothesis to be unprovable because it is **not making a claim**! It is merely a statement of *reservation* pending sufficient evidence. In other words, until invisible garden fairies can be scientifically verified we must assume that they probably do not exist -- because to conclude otherwise would be unfounded (the same goes for equal probability neutrality). You would be deluding yourself. Therefore, to argue that the inability to prove the null represents evidence of the alternate hypothesis is logically fallacious. It commits the burden of proof and argument from ignorance fallacies. I don't know why this is so hard for theists to comprehend. If you want to be unbiased in truth seeking, the mandatory default position is the null hypothesis. Nothing should be accepted as truth without sufficient evidence. Or, as Hitchens often said, "what can be stated without evidence can be rejected without evidence." Just like the claim of invisible fairies. This is a critical logical rule. If we had not applied this standard for evidence we would still be in the dark ages, as the advantage would be in favor of ridiculous but unprovable claims because they cannot be disproven (which, again, is textbook **fallacious logic**). This is the very source of progress you are denying here. Atheists don't reject God. They fail to reject the null hypothesis.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T13:44:24.0258526-06:00
Thank you VaLoR.
VaLoR says2014-02-25T13:54:51.6153793-06:00
Here's another example of what I mean when I talk about the null hypothesis: If I was to conduct an experiment on the link between saturated fat and heart disease, it would be necessary per peer review ethics to start with the null hypothesis. That is, "there is no association between saturated fat and heart disease" (simplified for practical purposes). If the experiment results in a statistically significant association, the null hypothesis is rejected. If it does not result in a statistically significant association, we "fail to reject" the null hypothesis. Even if there is a relatively "strong" association but not statistically significant (typically requiring less than 5% or 1% probability of happening by chance, depending on the prescribed study design) we STILL "fail to reject" the null hypothesis. To effectively discern truth, our standards of evidence must be very strict! This process is then repeated many times in multiple variations before the alternate hypothesis (that saturated fat IS positively associated with heart disease) is accepted, in order to account for variables and bias. That is just how progress works. That is how we minimize bias and determine truth with verifiable accuracy. Best of all, this process is self-correcting, unlike the Bible.
VaLoR says2014-02-25T14:20:38.4657410-06:00
Jifpop, your Big Bang argument is a non sequitor. The Big Bang, like a fresh murder scene, has a measurable result even if the why and how is unclear. God, unlike the Big Bang, is NOT measurable or otherwise verifiable. So again, the Big Bang has an unknown (or unknowable) beginning, but an objective, verifiable result. God has an unknown beginning and an UNVERIFIABLE result! The analogy is incompatible.
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-25T15:08:49.0729695-06:00
. "I would rather believe I'm not an evolved ape made from space dust from an explosion that was trillions of degrees hot but my cells apparently survived this blast and then formed to make a little fish thing then an ape and then evolved into a human without a soul. " - Rebel . That is the most stupid thing I have heard in a while.
TrustmeImlying says2014-02-25T15:20:55.6798662-06:00
Comrade I'm in tears, that completely passed by me unnoticed, thank you for calling that one out. Man, that's funny
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-25T15:22:59.4502662-06:00
Yes, and people missed what I said. Or gave no response, which saddens me. " I think that all current Religions are wrong. I am not stating that Religion is wrong, there may be a creator. But fighting each other, oppressing, killing, stealing, Worshiping, sacrificing, etc is something Religion shouldn't make you do. It should be a curious way to look at the world and think " I wonder what made that ". - Comrade
Soulja_n says2014-02-25T15:42:00.0895953-06:00
@Comrade, I somewhat agree with you... But I feel you can't really say a religion is wrong tho, because no one really knows... All you say is those religions are not for you or you don't believe in them... And it's weird that you're always breaking up Rebels fight's but said something that might start something to him...
Soulja_n says2014-02-25T15:44:46.9817893-06:00
Sorry, *all you can say*
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-25T15:47:03.6230182-06:00
Sorry, I just couldn't ignore that ignorance. But for the Religion thing, be agnostic or your have you OWN view on things. Simple.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T16:33:17.6924635-06:00
Yes comrade, my whole argument on this poll was that you should at least keep a open mind.
VaLoR says2014-02-25T16:58:21.2295896-06:00
@Jifpop, the scientific method is inherently open minded. Religion, on the other hand, is inherently closed minded. One is self-correcting and adapts to new evidence, while the other dogmatically adheres to a set of beliefs no matter what. One is dynamic and alive, the other static and dead.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T17:10:07.8315896-06:00
Never mind. You obviously keep trying to make this a atheist-religion beat down debate, but that is not what I was trying to argue. Very clearly was I arguing that agnosticism is better then atheism, but you keep getting off topic about how religious people are idiots. Nvm.
SNP1 says2014-02-25T17:12:18.0414839-06:00
Jif: But agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, they are answers to 2 separate questions. Do you know if there is a God(s)? Yes=gnostic, No=Agnostic. Do you believe in a god(s)? Yes=theist, No=atheist.
VaLoR says2014-02-25T17:24:30.8567127-06:00
@Jifpop09, that was not my intention at all. You were mischaracterizing atheism, and I was correcting you. You kept speaking of open mindedness, and this more accurately reflects the stance of atheism as opposed to theism. Agnosticism requires equal probability or else it is not agnosticism. Is there equal probability for invisible garden fairies? Then why is there with God? I never said religious people are idiots. If there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of God, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (atheism).
Jifpop09 says2014-02-25T17:28:22.0803214-06:00
... Alright, well keep a open mind, goodbye.
ESocialBookworm says2014-02-26T13:44:58.5873393-06:00
@abraralam Although what you have to say is interesting, no one is going to read those long paragraphs. Please, use more than one comment if you must!
SNP1 says2014-02-26T13:48:48.0922482-06:00
Esocial, most people probably have read it, but his sources do not contain any evidence. What he is saying is pretty much, "We Muslims say that Muslim bodies do not decay and these other Muslims say you should believe us, so you should believe what we are saying."
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:08:19.9965765-06:00
Yeah, his website is pretty weird too.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:25:14.4539855-06:00
@SNP1 LOl you actually believe Jesus didnt' exist. THat's like saying the earth is 6000 years old. I challenge you to say that to any historian or scholar and see their reaction when you say that. Virtually no ancient historian or scholar denies that Jesus existed. Only about less than 1 percent do. Just like virtually no scientist believes that the earth is 6000 years old.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T14:30:50.7587855-06:00
@janet, actually SNP1 is correct. You really think the highly controversial Josephus reference is equivalent to radio carbon dating (and others) in quality of evidence? You do realize that many historians now consider it a forgery, right?
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:33:04.6666956-06:00
@Valor They only think that certian parts of it are a forgery, but Mythiscists like to misrepresent the scholarly view and mislead others to think that entire passage is forged, when that is not true. Also Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The other mention is about his brother James, and Josephus referst oJesus as the "so-called Christ". Almost all scholars agree this is highly authentic.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T14:35:06.5042576-06:00
*cough* argumentum ad populum *cough* Plus there is no eye-witness testimony of Jesus, no records about his supposed life until DECADES afterwards, and the majority of them thought to be forgeries. Ya, that is argumentum ad populum at its finest. Evidence, or should I say lack of, shows that Jesus almost certainly did not exist.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T14:42:16.0977703-06:00
@janet, so it is "okay" for "certain parts" of the extremely brief mention of Jesus by Josephus to have been forged? And this does not impact its credibility? Not only is it still credible in your eyes, but it is as credible and reliable as radio carbon dating? The only scholars I have seen endorse Josephus happen to be religious themselves. But surely that bias would have nothing to do with it, right? I mean, blind faith is all about open mindedness and objectivity, right?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:44:56.5437703-06:00
There were many eyewitnesses and recording. Not just decades after. So many that it is improbable that a man named "Jesus" was not living. Even the bible is a collection of many writings right after Jesus's death.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:46:24.0285703-06:00
@Valor Yes because scholars think there was an original authentic core where Josephus mentions Jesus crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, and was the founder of Christianity. And no, religious scholars are not the only ones who endores it. Virtually all scholars endores it.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T14:49:40.2594597-06:00
@Jifpop09, no there weren't. Plenty of historians in the area at the time whose records we have, and somehow they all missed the virgin birth, the walking on water, the healing of the sick and the blind and the rising from the dead and ascending into heaven? And they call themselves historians? If you know these eye witness reports are a well established fact, would you mind providing an impartial source?
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:52:32.5976123-06:00
@SNP1 I'm not appealing to historians and scholars as evidence. I'm appealing to historians and scholars to show you that his existence is not disputed because you seem to think that it is disputed and that historians are divided on the issue when their not. You seem to have a prejudice of how ancient history works. We have the 4 gospels which are first and second hand sources that draw upon reliable oral tradition. 2. If you want to argue that because they were written after the fact, then you must also deny that Pontius Pilate existed because the only people that mention him are after roman historians and rulers after he existed, and they only mention him when they talk about Jesus. You must also deny that Socrates existed because we only have his contemporaries, but no ancient historian wrote about Socrates during his time, nor did Socrates himself write anything. You must also deny that alexander the Great existed because the only contemporaries who wrote about him were 400 years after the faact.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T14:53:27.0420165-06:00
Jif, the only person who is alleged to have written anything in the Bible that is actually thought to have written his part is Paul, who even says he never met Jesus. The other "authors", Mark, Luke, John, etc. did not actually write their part. It is still argumentum ad populum. There is pretty much the same amount of evidence that Jesus existed as there are for the existence of God, but with a major difference. Cult movements were recorded, Jesus was never mentioned. Jesus was supposedly from Nazareth, Nazareth did not exist during the time of his supposed life. What this means is that Jesus's existence is actually less likely than the existence of a god.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:53:52.5636165-06:00
Only Wikipedia. Which this article gets edited and moderated constantly. Note the line... "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
VaLoR says2014-02-26T14:54:18.9242845-06:00
@janet, which "scholars"? Clearly, they are divided. Those in favor all coincidentally seem to share a critical trait in common... Kind of like evolution and global warming. Moreover, even if it was a credible and independently verified report (which it clearly isn't) it STILL wouldn't come close to the quality of evidence of something like radio carbon dating. Journal entries are poor quality evidence. Not all opinions or forms of evidence are equivalent.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:55:16.8782845-06:00
@Snp1 - What about Peter and John. Their writings are believed to be preserved.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:55:37.8446845-06:00
@SNP1 Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong Wrong. Your using the typical psuedoscholarship arguemetns from Richard Carrier and or self published mythicists.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:56:40.1822845-06:00
I get that you don't want to believe in god, but it is ridiculous to believe that Jesus was not a person. God or not, he obviously existed. We have more records on Jesus then most historical figures.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T14:57:08.8272165-06:00
@Valor cite me your source of scholars who dispute that Josephus passage about Jesus where he says "The So called Christ" isn't authentic/ I guarantee you will find very few scholars who are divided because it's not disputed.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T14:59:32.8932165-06:00
Exactly Sanders. The consensus of most serious unbiased scholars is that Jesus at least existed. It is like the people who deny global warming.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:00:29.9424165-06:00
@Jifpop, you are again committing the burden of proof fallacy. It is not our responsibility to prove that Jesus did not exist. The burden of proof is on those who claim that he did exist, and that bar is set high by necessity -- as it is with ALL claims of fact or association in any field. Think innocent (null hypothesis) until proven guilty in court, if that helps. If there is evidence that it "might" have been authentic, which I have seen nothing but lip service from religious apologists to support, it still does not meet the burden of proof.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T15:01:57.2868165-06:00
We have more "records" about Jesus than most historical figures. Difference is that most historical figures have records written by eye-witnesses, Jesus does not. Where we expect some records to be found of most historical figures we usually found them. We cannot find any about Jesus where we would expect to find them. Most historical people lived in a city that existed at the time they lived. Jesus lived in a city that did not exist during the time he lived. There is no evidence for Jesus's existence, and where there should be some there aren't.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:02:09.4982845-06:00
All right, here you go... Http://carm.Org/jesus-exist Most scholars are in consensus that he existed.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:04:09.0132165-06:00
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:06:00.4717197-06:00
My mistake... Http://carm.Org/jesus-exist
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:07:15.3872323-06:00
@Jifpop09, "global warming does not exist" would certainly qualify as a null hypothesis (though, it wouldn't be stated in that kind of language). As with cigarettes not causing cancer and saturated fat not causing heart disease. However, the evidence thoroughly exceeded the burden of proof in the eyes of every competent scientist without political or financial conflicts of interest, and is easily verifiable through a myriad of physical evidence -- not hearsay. Josephus would be an example of a hearsay source of evidence.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T15:07:21.6740726-06:00
Jif, you gave me a link to a Christian website and you expect me to take it seriously? First off, the New Testament is historically unreliable. The names attached to the gospels were VOTED on, they were anonymously written decades after Jesus would have died. There are also quite a lot of forgeries that mention Jesus in the list provided. Find a secular source for me, until then I cannot take you seriously.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:07:41.7046010-06:00
@SNP1 Jesus city did exist during his time because we have archaelogical evidence of human skelteons and archaeologist can know the culture at the time obviously. I would like to know where you and Valor get your information about Jesus non-existence because I can gurantee you it's not from scholars and historians, but probably from infidels or shoddy websites like Jesusneverexisted or FreeThoughts Blogsmetc.....
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:13:52.2055396-06:00
@ValorRichard A Burridge, Bart Ehrman, E.P. Sanders, James G. Crossley, Amy-Jill Levine, William Lane Craig, Michael Grant, Paul L. Meier, Gary Habermas, John Dominic Crossan, Robert E. Van Voorst, James Dunn, Graham Stanton, Maurice Casey.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:16:05.5699396-06:00
It is a christian website, but the article is most certainly not biased. They are a research ministry and they only used logic, and it was a legit list of writers and writings. You can not say that was biased.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:17:12.3338128-06:00
@janet, I am glad you understand that references with an obvious agenda can be unreliable due to their bias. Now, why is it you cannot comprehend this with regard to historians of faith? The whole purpose of faith is to believe independent of the evidence. It is the strongest bias that exists. But your religious scholars are the reliable, unbiased sources?
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T15:17:28.6555396-06:00
This argument is really starting to drag... Does everyone here know that all the religions have beliefs that are incorrect? Literally. All of them.... Lemme know if you want me to put an example for each and every one.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:18:21.5354128-06:00
Look, I don't believe Muhammad is god, but I am not so close minded to deny his existence. And he had a lot less records then Jesus.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:19:15.2150128-06:00
@demonlord- I totally believe you, but we are arguing whether Jesus even existed. Which he did.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:19:29.0365690-06:00
@Valor Most of the scholars are cited are non-religious as well. Bart Ehrman is an Agnostic. James G. Crossley is secular, EP sanders is a secular NT scholar. Maurice Casey is secular and a NT scholar. Amy-Jill Levine is Liberal. Zeba Crook is a Professor is a Classics/NT historian Professor and secular.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:22:05.1967396-06:00
I am genuinely unopposed to the idea that Jesus existed. It is independent of whether or not he had supernatural gifts anyway. The problem is that the evidence is of considerably poor quality. The burden of proof is steep. You'll need far more than a vague mention in a document noted to have a very high probability of tampering.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:23:00.9202524-06:00
We are only arguing that he existed at all.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T15:24:09.1515072-06:00
Janet, do you want me to find the secular sources for Nazareth's nonexistence or should I do what you have and give biased sources? Jif, I read it, and I have researched this many times before. Most of the sources listed I already know from my own research are unreliable. I haven't had to look for the sources for a few years now, but I can try and find them for you. Demonlord: Correct, they all have flaws and inconsistencies. I would love for you to start listing some examples.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T15:24:19.1235537-06:00
@Jifpop09- Lol. Sorry ive been in a few debates relating to that topic. There has been substantial proof for things that existed around Jebus, but not direct proof of his existence. Is there a chance considering multiple religions mention Jesus? Yes... However the fact remains that it is still highly unlikely. If you wish to get into an argument with me about it, start one with my name in it. And also, Muhammad was not a god, that was Allah...
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:25:40.8992779-06:00
@Valor That's simply not true. We have just as much evidence for Jesus as we do Julius Caesar. The 4 gospels, The entire NT, Tacitus, Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, Early Church fathers,etc... If you want to deny Jesus, then go ahead, but you must also deny Socrates, Pontius Pilate, Alexander the Great, Cicero or anyone else in ancient history. I go by evidence, and not psuedoscholarship
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:26:00.7426051-06:00
There are more records on Jesus then the roman empire.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T15:29:37.5956642-06:00
How many of those records of Jesus were written by eye-witnesses? None. And how many of the records about the Roman Empire are written by eye-witnesses? Quite a few. Which is more reliable? Eye-witness testimony about the existence of the Roman Empire.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:29:58.7336642-06:00
Yes, you would also be denying the studies of 100's of dedicated scholars.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T15:30:47.2214627-06:00
@janetsanders733 These are all religious texts. Thus they have a different bias by the editorial process, translation, and church management. And i dont have to deny people like Pontius Pilate because he actually did exist and there are official Roman records of his existence. Jesus, however, does not have any proof in any records other than the religious texts. Alexander the Great has many proofs of his existence. Socrates does as well. More official records are present for all of those subjects you have listed. Religious texts are biased because they describe it with a relation to a deity.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:31:19.1048642-06:00
Yes, there were many eyewitnesses. We have sourced and told you them, but you are being as stubborn as young earth creationists and people who deny global warming.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T15:31:44.7698627-06:00
@SNP1 I would like to know where your getting your arguements because they seem very cheap and shoddy. I know they're not from historians and scholars
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:32:35.1232224-06:00
No, because few historians and scholars agree with him.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:32:56.0426883-06:00
Even atheist historian and scholars.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:35:48.3638627-06:00
@janet, the 4 gospels were written well after Jesus had allegedly been crucified. Even religious apologists are forced, for the most part, to admit this fact. They completely are worthless for our purposes. The other sources you mention only refer to the TERM "Christus" or "the annointed one" without sufficient context. Hardly concrete evidence. Legends grow with time, and in an age before the printing press, when stories traveled primarily by word of mouth, this was especially true. But you consider it as reliable as radio carbon dating. Clearly, you never played whisper down the lane in kindergarten.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:39:41.6882629-06:00
They were written right after. You and snp1 are being extremely close minded and are arguing on no sources. Yet you bring ares into question. We have supplied you with MORE then enough records and writings, and I talked to many atheists, and they agree with me. Yes, the gospels were written right after Jesus's death, but by people who were witnesses to Jesus. Even more writings were made by the 500 witnesses.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:42:43.8049977-06:00
@SNP1- I don't think you know what sources are secular or not, as many of the writings on that site were not even written by Christians. Even Sanders gave many. Such as Pliny the younger.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T15:43:31.3543925-06:00
I am not using sources because you have yet to use an unbiased source. If you want me to use a biased source then I will. And Christus does not mean Jesus, it was a term that meant holy man, priest, etc. You also have not provided evidence that the gospels were written by witnesses of Jesus.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:45:08.1055925-06:00
Come on man. Me and Sanders have provided you LONG lists of writings and records. Are you really going to deny all of them as unbiased. Again, many were written by non-Christians.
TrustmeImlying says2014-02-26T15:47:19.6173858-06:00
If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, than certainly you must believe the eye-witness testimonies of an angel authenticating the Book of Mormon? You must believe that the book is in fact another testament of Jesus. There were eye-witnesses, so it must be true. And of course you know that Muhammad split the moon in half. That is, if all you require for evidence is someone saying it happened... That would make Yeti, Sasquatch, alien abductions, the resurrection of Elvis, the loch ness monster, and ANYTHING ELSE that people have claimed to have seen real also. Do you see the problem here?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:50:39.0127925-06:00
1. I am not Mormon. 2. As I am not a Mormon, I don't believe in their bible. 3. I believe Muhammad existed, but I am not Islamic. 4. No, I do not see the problem. The difference between Yeti and Aliens is that we actually have hundreds of records and scholars that confirm Jesus did live. Ridiculously illogical argument.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T15:51:47.2821858-06:00
@Jifpop09, even the website you cited earlier argued in an article that it "could have been" before 70 A.D., and he was grasping at straws to justify his blatant bias. This is confirmation bias in practice. Again, we have different standards for evidence. To you, "could have been" means "probably was". For me, "probably was" would still be weak evidence. Why don't you read what Josephus actually said about Jesus for yourself and tell me what you think. Then read Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, etc. and tell me they definitively describe the Jesus Christ of the bible as opposed to merely using "Christus" in its Greek meaning of "annointed one." On one side, apologists suggest that Jesus wasn't mentioned because he wasn't well known. His group was small. And yet, the "eyewitness testimony" of the very gospels make mention of great crowds observing his miracles.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T15:57:58.3132152-06:00
Look, arguing this is stupid. You are obviously being close minded about so many different records and writings. I will restate that more writings on Jesus exist then both Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire. I read your comments and you call many groups close minded, but you need to realize when you may be one of the close minded ones. I frankly don't want to argue this anymore, because it is like talking to a brick wall. You will just deny and deny without giving reasonable responses. If you want to convince me, then dispute me why EVERY one of those sources provided are not true. If you don't want to believe in god that's fine, but you can not deny that a man named Jesus existed.
TrustmeImlying says2014-02-26T15:58:03.4144479-06:00
Interesting, so you don't believe that the Book of Mormon is a testament to Jesus? But there were eyewitness accounts we have record of. Please provide evidence to counter the historical claim that an angel authenticated the book. Please provide evidence to counter the historical claim that Muhammad split the moon. Please provide evidence to counter the historical claim that Yeti, Sasquatch, and Loch Ness don't exist. You're also incorrect in your assessment, there have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of people who have experienced Yeti, Sasquatch, alien abductions, and claimed to have seen Elvis. I demand that my beliefs be respected, and if you can't counter my historical claims of eye witness statements, than you haven't got a leg to stand on.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T15:59:13.7978054-06:00
@jifpop09 it does not matter if you are mormonic or not. It is still a text of Jesus, is it not? Then why can it not be used to contradict your evidence if you assume things like the new testament to be true?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:02:41.6729089-06:00
There were not eye witnesses on the level of Jesus. Plus, I judge by the statement that Paul said that if anyone makes new claims on the bible after Jesus, then assume they are lying. He wrote like two pages on the subject. Honestly, you guys are being very close minded. You dispute all those recording that I was ASKED to give, as false, but there was a lot. Explain to me how everyone of those is wrong. I get it if you don't believe in god, but don't be so close minded to doubt that a man named Jesus once lived.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:04:15.0655208-06:00
@SNP1 Are you willing to debate me on this? I already sent you a challenge.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:05:53.5483208-06:00
Don't debate him. All he will do is belittle any evidence you give him. Even if I were to present him with a lost cache of 1000's of records, he would deny them all.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:10:32.6011208-06:00
If you want to debate, just make sure that your sources are of no relevance to any religion. Those cites are indeed biased. They are trying to promote the belief of something. If you want to have a solid source, find an reliable, unbiased source containing direct info from a record that says that Jebus (jesus for the minds that lack a sense of humor) was walkin around. Just find one that hasnt been forged... I havent looked up to check your sources yet.. But please repaste the url. I wanna see
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:11:40.8194938-06:00
@Valor Your point? Many ancient documents were written after the fact. Alexander the Great wasn't written about till 400 years later. What about Pontius Pilate? We don't have an roman records from his day. Only records after he existed affirming his rule, and role in Jesus crucifixion. I am already challenging SnP1 to a debate on this if he accepts.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:11:42.4313089-06:00
I don't get how they can deny historians such as Josephus, Lucian, and Celcus.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T16:12:59.0585089-06:00
@Jifpop09, I could easily say that you are closed minded to the possibility that the existing historical records of Jesus Christ are insufficient to prove his existence. An open mind is receptive to evidence of sufficient strength and quality as to exceed the burden of proof. A closed mind rejects the null hypothesis with insufficient justification (i.E. Is faith based or speculative -- not supported by the weight of the evidence). I certainly consider it possible that Jesus existed. He easily could have even played the part of a miracle worker (in the same way that "faith healers" and religious charlatans continue to do today in large numbers). His physical existence is independent of the mythology surrounding him, and for years I took that "fact" for granted until I assessed the evidence.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:15:35.0709936-06:00
No, because I have a million records on my side. I know you can not possibly deny them all, but yet you are. You know how insane that is?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:17:30.1068684-06:00
God or not, he existed. It is in near unanimous consensus. Just like global warming and that the earth is more then 6000 years old. You are arguing 95% of modern scholars.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:21:44.2656320-06:00
@Valor No, because the existing historical records are not insufficient since they meet the expected criteria. Therefore, the only one who would be close-minded is the "mysthicist". Any arguement for Mythicism, is going to be based upon false premises and assumptions. To reject that Jesus of Nazareth existed is without Justification.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:24:19.7467213-06:00
If I wanted to, I could say that the Peloponnesian war never happened, but I wont because almost everyone believes it did. This is like debating a brick.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:26:42.9744320-06:00
Ughh.. Listening to you guys reitterating the same thing is getting annoying.. Quit beotching already!! Im here too!! Good lord...
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:27:45.9828320-06:00
@demonlord343 Then don't be here if you don't like it:) You can turn off the notifications on your settings
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:28:37.3322701-06:00
It is a debate site. It's called arguing. Anyways, enough. If you want to discuss this then debate me.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:29:05.7708878-06:00
No, do some debating and quit getting emotional. The responses are interesting and im interested when they are about the topic. If you want to talk amongst yourselves and whine about your oppenents, then go away.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:29:36.4090914-06:00
I know, hipocrit, but who else is gonna tell you?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:29:51.3132320-06:00
It seems Valor has quit too. We knocked 3 people out of this comment debate. I count that as a victory.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:30:21.9828320-06:00
You still got one left..
VaLoR says2014-02-26T16:30:31.4832535-06:00
@janet, I have no responsibility to disprove every historical document. (I have already addressed many individually by choice from the gospels to Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc.) That is not how the burden of proof works. The null hypothesis is the default starting point. The practicing apologist will always find more crutches to lean on. We simply differ in our approach toward truth seeking. I value skepticism, you value faith. We have different standards of evidence. I set the bar high as I would with any claim, while you set it low (or don't understand why it is of low quality). I start with the null hypothesis, while you jump to the alternative and look for ways to justify it. That's not intended as in insult of your personal character, only your approach toward truth seeking at this moment in time. We are simply speaking different languages. I am not perfect, and I don't claim to be. I just try to be very careful about what I accept as fact and not. In my opinion, ideas/opinions are dynamic and ever changing. They never define the individual, only their collective understandings/experience/acculturation at one point in time. I'm not satisfied with the world as I understand it today. I want to know the world as it truly is -- and that requires high standards for evidence.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T16:33:08.5560999-06:00
Yes you do Valor. For me to believe that the consensus is wrong, you have to argue why every single account is either a lie or false. Which not every account is. Most atheist scholars agree, so I don't get your stubbornness. God or not. He existed.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T16:33:12.9442885-06:00
Most sources listed about "Jesus's" existence are using the word Christus. Christus means holy man, priest, etc. That means a simple priest from a temple could be referred to as Christus. Next we have many documents written by people that were born after "Jesus" would have died. They are not reliable, and many of them still use Christus. We also have many documents that were forged, making them unreliable. You also used a biased source, unreliable. You are saying that Jesus existing, which has no evidence, is as accurate as the age of the Earth, which has been tested and found out. Josephus was, according to most scholars, a forgery, and he was born after Jesus would have died. When scholars use evidence I will have an open mind. When scholars use documents that obviously are fake, unreliable, etc. I will doubt what they say. I am open minded when people do not use unreliable sources. Also, janet has been told that someone will accept her debate. Why don't we just stop bickering here, look at how the debate turns out, then we can bicker in the comments afterwards. You also did not "knock me out", I simply got busy.
demonlord343 says2014-02-26T16:33:33.3024190-06:00
VaLoR imma talk about you to. Dont argue as to why you are morally right or why the other is morally wrong. Then its no longer a debate, it is an argument. Take it elsewhere.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T16:41:58.1035551-06:00
If I claimed there were invisible fairies in my garden, the burden of proof would not be on you to prove they do not exist. I will assume you don't take seriously the claims of ancient alien theorists. Why not? There are plenty of highly controversial texts open to that interpretation, and the idea certainly doesn't break any fundamental laws of physics (unlike modern religions). In fact, what if I were to argue that you had the burden of disproving every piece of so-called evidence that the ancient alien theorists reference? And if you can't do that, we must assume the ancient alien theory is true. The fundamental problem with religious discussions (or claims of the paranormal in general) is that it flips the burden of proof in a fallacious manner. It is argued that if the extraordinary claim "can't be disproven" it is therefore "probably true." But as with invisible garden fairies and ancient aliens, this should seem an anti-intellectual approach to truth.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:47:44.1740323-06:00
@SNP1 Wrong again. Christus is a mispelling of Christ which is the greek title for Jesus meaning "Messiah". Again your making more assumptions without providing any evidence to support it. It's like I said earlier. The Christ myth or Jesus myth theory will be based upon false assumptions and premises. Josephus entire passage was not forged, only parts of it. This is misleading and scholarly consensus is that Josephus wrotge about Jesus with an authentic core mentioning his crucifixin under Pontius Pilate and Christianity being named after him. Also Josephus mentions Jesus twice and the second passage is entirely authentic. If you don't want to debate me, then don't make dubious comments in the section because I'm not going to keep arguing back and forth on here. The point of a debate is to establish a discussion civiliy.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T16:49:41.7675861-06:00
History is an inherently unreliable field of research. You can only discern what was said, but what was meant is open to interpretation. Worse still is the issue of author exaggerations and outright lies/forgeries. Dishonesty was as rampant in antiquity as it is today. In fact, far worse, as most people had no way in which to cross reference claims. Moreover, given the religious nature of this particular subset of history, the opinions of authorities are even further compromised. Aside from money, dedication to a blind faith is the strongest driver of bias we know of. The state of the evidence currently in question would be inadmissible even in a court of law, which itself has lower standards of proof than science due to the occasional acceptance of hearsay. I am only arguing for precision.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T16:51:18.2338495-06:00
@Valor Unreliable by what standard? Your own?.. By your statement then we should doubt that everyone ever existed. Galeleo, Socrates, Josephus, etc..
VaLoR says2014-02-26T17:07:07.3378380-06:00
@janet, What parts of it were forged? Let's have a look at what it actually said, shall we? Could it have been that bit about "Christ"? That was Richard Carrier's opinion -- the words "who was called Christ" appear out of place and may have been written into the margin by an unknown reader. Jesus ben Damneus was also mentioned, and this may have been the Jesus that was referred to. Would you say this, the more robust of the two mentions, definitively described the Jesus Christ of the bible? The other one was certainly more explicit. The earliest reference to Testimonium Flavianum was from the christian apologist Eusebius around the year 300. Olson and Wallace-Hadrill have posited that this quotation of Josephus was invented by Eusebius. Others argue that, yet again, only parts of it may be accurate. And so it goes with historical testimonial evidence....
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T17:10:01.4351570-06:00
Valor, you have literally denied 50 accounts. There is a near unanimous consensus that someone named Jesus existed. At this point, you are just building a stone wall of denial.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T17:10:32.3077768-06:00
The existence of Galileo, Socrates, and Josephus are far more robust than for Jesus Christ. Their mentions are explicit, thorough and timely and can be cross referenced independently. They are also far, far less extraordinary. Though, the further you go back, the less reliable historical texts become.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:10:38.3450155-06:00
@Valor You do realize Richard Carrier's work is rejected because of how shoddy it is. He's like Kent Hovind when it coems to ancient history.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T17:13:17.2788343-06:00
Sanders, please just ignore him. He is only debating this because it supports his theory that god did not exist, even though almost every reputable scholar at least acknowledges Jesus's existence. Even Bill Maher, a hardcore skeptic, at least acknowledges his existence.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T17:13:23.7203570-06:00
Jif, you keep saying to be open minded. The majority is not always right. Instead of rejecting what he is saying by using a fallacy, stay open minded and listen to what he is saying.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T17:16:02.9201399-06:00
No, but when we have 100's of records and research proving his existence, the minority are pretty much fools. I have been open minded for every comment, but you guys are denying a extreme amount of evidence. God or not, a man named Jesus existed.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T17:22:12.6717569-06:00
@Jifpop09 -- You are appealing to authority without proper context. It would be one thing in a field of science with controlled experiments and verifiable evidence. Historical texts are a wildly different and less reliable beast. The taint of religious bias is undeniable. @janet, "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned" Your conclusion is that "who was called Christ" goes with the flow of this narrative? Certainly, it would have been easy for it to have been written in. The printing press didn't exist yet. Moreover, assuming that this extraordinary claim is "true" in the sense that Josephus understood it, it still would tell us little of how Josephus came to this knowledge and if it was passed on to him accurately, or what this Christ character represented to him. Remember whisper down the lane? How is this not understood to be poor quality evidence? Again, I am not making a claim that it is proven false (because, by nature, the null hypothesis often cannot be proven -- as with the fairy example). I am merely pointing out how poor this evidence is, and thus not worthy of confident acceptance.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:25:24.4584360-06:00
@Valor That's simply fallacious. Your making more assumptions like Young earth creationists when it comes to radiometric dating by using the "Time glass" fallacy. It's not an extraordinary claim that Josephus wrote about James being killed, and mentioning that Jesus was his brother. Josephus was a pharisee and had first hand knowledge about Jesus being in his position. Historians didn't write about what they heard, but what they knew.It's not poor evidence. It's your bias toward the text that's poor.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:27:22.3975861-06:00
@Valor So historians who are not Christian( which there are a lot) argue that the existence of Jesus is overwhelmingly documented, they are false?
VaLoR says2014-02-26T17:31:50.7306084-06:00
@janet, the burden of proof is on the alternative hypothesis, not on the null hypothesis. These are legitimate confounding variables. I assumed none of them true. I merely stated the obvious -- they affect the quality of the evidence significantly just as they would for the results of any study in science. Occam's razor. Too many assumptions need to be made in order to conclude that the reports are literal truth.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:33:14.9238084-06:00
@Valor the burden of proof is on both sides. Were both making a truth claim. Jesus did exist or Jesus did not exist. Are you up for accepting my debate challenge?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T17:33:33.8959861-06:00
Stop arguing with him. He is attempting to argue a mountain on proof. For the last time... God or not, A man named Jesus once walked Israel. Goodbye.
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:34:28.0903861-06:00
@Jifpop09 That's why I challenged him to a debate.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T17:42:14.3726556-06:00
Yep, so no more arguing here. We should formalize this.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T17:52:13.2603092-06:00
Like I said a while ago... Finally
janetsanders733 says2014-02-26T17:52:59.8834030-06:00
@Valor Do you want to accept or reject my debate?
VaLoR says2014-02-26T20:49:55.3658531-06:00
I responded on the debate request comment section.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:08:21.2211009-06:00
And just as a final correction, I made no such claim of falsity. One can criticize without making absolutist claims. I stated as much in my preceding comment -- "Again, I am not making a claim that it is proven false (because, by nature, the null hypothesis often cannot be proven -- as with the fairy example). I am merely pointing out how poor this evidence is, and thus not worthy of confident acceptance." The null hypothesis is not a claim of fact. That is why I repeatedly used the examples of invisible garden fairies and ancient aliens. The null hypothesis in these cases is not a claim of falsity. It represents skepticism of the strength of the evidence of the alternative hypothesis on which the burden lies. It is equivalent to the default judgment of court proceedings -- "innocent until proven guilty." One can criticize the validity of a claim without proclaiming definitive falsity (just as one cannot accurately claim that invisible garden fairies definitely don't exist). The null hypothesis is the necessary default in peer reviewed science for the above reasons. I will concede, however, that the historical existence of a man referred to as Jesus Christ is of higher probability than the supernatural powers and religious underpinnings attributed to him, which are independent of his physical existence.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:15:59.2683712-06:00
To articulate this point more succinctly, I will quote Christopher Hitchens when he said, "Jesus of Nazareth is not a figure in history ... There is no firm evidence that he existed." When asked if he really believed that Jesus never lived, however, he more carefully responded, "No, I said there is no reason to believe that he did." Hence, the logically proper null hypothesis.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T21:16:46.0527712-06:00
I thought we were done arguing. Just accept Janets debate.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:17:25.5783012-06:00
@Jifpop09, it had already been accepted.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-26T21:17:43.6585853-06:00
Oh no, all the atheists have to keep the arguments going in the comment section.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T21:20:05.1399712-06:00
Alright, well I wish you luck. I probably wont vote due to this argument, but if I do I promise to be unbiased.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T21:20:27.4323712-06:00
@rebel - do not escalate things.
Actionsspeak says2014-02-26T21:21:25.6937971-06:00
@rebel- it's debate.Org welcome to it
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:25:38.5880199-06:00
@Jifpop09, it was accepted by a different user in the comment section before me. So, unfortunately or not, I will not be playing the role of skeptic. But I look forward to spectating nevertheless. I honestly don't see us as enemies in any personal sense. We just disagree on the facts and philosophy of one particular issue. I think the fact that we are willing to engage in debate on the matter at all displays, at least on some level, a passion for truth and continuity. For that I thank you.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-26T21:26:53.9086943-06:00
Jifpop, number 1, is it ok if I call u jiffy? #2 I was speaking the truth.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T21:26:54.4078943-06:00
Either did I. Yeah, I guess that was a fun mini debate.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-26T21:27:41.7538943-06:00
Hye Valor, why are you an atheist?
Jifpop09 says2014-02-26T21:28:15.5122943-06:00
1. Yes, that is OK. 2. You said you can't wait for atheists to burn. True Christians do not say or want this.
SNP1 says2014-02-26T21:39:46.8155645-06:00
Rebel, what do you think atheism is? I already explained this to you before and you claimed you understood.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:40:42.0626853-06:00
I grew up as a Roman Catholic rather isolated from the world of atheism. Though I didn't go to private school, I did attend a "Sunday School" of sorts, albeit on Wednesday nights. I went through all the indoctrination ceremonies without a doubt in my mind in the existence of God. It wasn't until I got into my mid to late teens that I was ever even exposed to the very idea of agnosticism. It was a bit of an epiphany. It hadn't even occurred to me that people existed that did not believe in the existence of a God. The deconversion was pretty rapid at that point, as I came to realize, on my own, how fallacious blind faith was in light of the scientific understanding of the world. The fact that I had a passion for science certainly accelerated the process. More accurately, I should say, I have a passion for knowledge and understanding. I am not interested in the world as I see it at any given moment. I desire to see the world as it truly is, in spite of any personal bias. So, for me, that requires extreme openness, but also strict expectations for the quality of evidence I rely on to discern my best approximation of truth. As an atheist, I don't discount the possibility of the existence of a God or Gods. I just don't consider the evidence supportive at this time -- scientifically or philosophically, and certainly not cumulatively.
VaLoR says2014-02-26T21:59:19.1353996-06:00
I feel the need to add to "I desire to see the world as it truly is, in spite of personal bias." that this is the goal I strive towards. However, it is not physically possible (in my opinion, at this time) for a human being to be completely, 100% objective. We are emotional creatures. The irrational tendency to attach an opinion to personal identity, and defend it as such, (belittling others in the process) is inevitable. That is the ego at work. I try not to allow debates to become a personal matter, but it is ultimately inevitable on some level. Sometimes, as well, words can be a barrier to true communication as the tone may be misinterpreted and word associations/connotations may be interpreted differently between communicating parties. I just try my best to remind myself of this human weakness as frequently as possible and I do my best to attempt to compensate for it.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-26T22:14:50.5180079-06:00
Hey jiffy, I'm a Jew
demonlord343 says2014-02-27T09:24:23.0546545-06:00
Yes! The argument stopped in the comments!
Comrade_Silly_Otter says2014-02-27T09:26:58.1341281-06:00
Demon, I don't believe it has.
SNP1 says2014-02-27T09:28:33.9643138-06:00
Rebel, do you have Jewish heritage? Jew is a race, Judaism is a religion. Are you Jewish?
demonlord343 says2014-02-27T09:28:40.1584133-06:00
Awww, you had my hopes up... Oh well.
demonlord343 says2014-02-27T09:30:08.7034457-06:00
@SNP1 uh.... Please explain the difference. Isnt a Jew someone who believes in Judaism?
SNP1 says2014-02-27T09:35:34.3831220-06:00
They are technically 2 separate things. The race of Jew today is considered the descendants of the Israelites or Hebrews. Judaism is the religion that follows the Torah. They are technically 2 separate things, but people today are starting to say that Jew is no longer a race, but that is not technically correct. I was surprised when I learned there was a difference, but now I accept that there is.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-27T13:23:20.2425429-06:00
I have both Native American heritage, Indian heritage, and Jewish heritage, and yes, I am religious Jew.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-27T13:25:05.0140451-06:00
All, not both* lol
Jifpop09 says2014-02-27T14:00:26.7723225-06:00
Well, Judaism is kind of contradictory based on my knowledge. You had to be a ethnic Jew to be apart of the religion, but modern day Jewish revivals allow anyone in.
Buckethead31594 says2014-02-27T14:12:58.8824217-06:00
Dang, where's AnsweringAtheism when you need him?
SNP1 says2014-02-27T14:14:27.0225531-06:00
Jif: Only in certain parts of the world, that is why I was asking if he was ethnically a Jew or not
Jifpop09 says2014-02-27T14:16:29.0457531-06:00
I myself have roots to the original Jews, but it does not make since how a non ethnic Jew can join the religion. Christianity explained this, but nothing in the Torah.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-27T14:18:01.3509531-06:00
This is because the Jews believed that the decedents of Abraham would inherit heaven, but Non-Jews are not descended. In Christianity, you can make the connection through baptism.
abraralam says2014-02-27T19:06:21.6081704-06:00
(1) With the name of Allah who has power of control on creatures and natures. How we can solve the important problems of all human beings in this life and hereafter while the presence of many religions at a time is reason of all wars, illiteracy and poverty directly or indirectly in this life and they are reason for going of a majority in Hell in the life hereafter too? If God is one, universe is one, system of universe is one, Heaven and Hell is one, we all human beings are naturally one, then who divided us in Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Sikhs etc, and who made us enemies of each others that happened among us wars, killed our millions innocent human brothers and sisters and innocent women and children too? Why we have to spend the half money of world on atom bombs and defense and why we haven’t to spend that money on finishing the illiteracy and poverty from the world? There are many religious books in world like the Torah for Jews, the Bible for Christians, the Veda for Hindus and Holy Quran for Muslims. And there are many religions in world also like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism, Jainism Atheism etc. There are Millions differences among their thinking, logic, books, beliefs and life styles. Their all followers claim that they are only the followers of true religion and other all are followers of false, canceled, or incomplete religions. In this situation if a neutral person wants to accept any books or any religions as guidance for finding the right path to the God who created this universe, then it will be very difficult for him to choose any religions and any books from them. Further there are wars by these religious differences in world since centuries and millions innocent women and children murdered by these wars directly or indirectly. According to my deeply thinking and research these wars are reason for poverty and illiteracy also in 75% human beings in world. I think if there was any one books and any one religions in whole world, there shouldn't be above important problems for human beings and this world should be like a Paradise, while it is like a Hell at this time. So we 7 Billion human beings should assemble on these three steps. (1) We should choose 700 expert religious leaders from all religions through United Nations. (2) We should Say them to research and choose any one religion from above religions, because they all say that any one of them is only true surely near the God who created this universe. (3) Then we all should accept that religion and leave other all religions. Because we all are basically from one father and mother. The God creator is one. The system of this universe is one and the behavior of natures is one too. (4) Without it, we can't establish the peace in world forever, we can’t stop the bomb blast forever, we can’t stop the wars and atomic wars forever, we can’t finish the poverty and illiteracy from the world forever, and we can’t solve the other big and important problems of all human beings too. Because the presence of many religions at a time in world is reason of wars, poverty, illiteracy and destruction of the human beings. (5) According to my deeply research and thinking the natures like the Earth, the Fire, the Air, the water and the human bodies obeys only God of Islam or true followers of God of Islam. They do not obey another Gods or followers of other Gods. For example, there are hundreds of fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. The Holy Quran support this research too. Holy Quran in Surah no 3 verse no 19, about Islam. "Truly, the (recognized) religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." Holy Quran Surah no 5 verse no 3 about completing Islam. "Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed my blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Deen (religion and a way of life) for you". Holy Quran Surah no 2 verse no 154, about alive dead bodies of Muslim Martyrs and Muslim saints. "Do not say of those who are slain in the way of Allah that they are dead. Instead, they are alive, but you do not perceive" Holy Quran Surah no 3 verse no 169, about fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and Muslim saints. " Never take those killed in the way of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their lord, well-provided". Holy Quran, Surah 41, Verse 53, about signs of truth of Islam in dead bodies. We shall (continue to) show them Our evidence in the world and within their souls until it becomes clear that the Quran is the truth. Is it not sufficient for you that your Lord witness all things? So, These fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and Muslim saints are 100% neutral, natural, perceptible and irrefutable proof on truth of Islam only. Because there is no any dead bodies of any Atheists and Non-Muslims who is preserved in fresh and sleeping condition with fresh blood like alive person without used any chemicals since the time of last prophet Muhammad ( peace be upon him ), because they are in painful punishment after their death as the Holy Quran says about it too. Except religion Islam all religions has been cancelled near to the God. Holy Quran in Surah no 3 verse no 85, about all religions except Islam. "Whoever seeks a faith other than Islam, it will never be acceptable from him, and he, in the hereafter, will among the losers." Holy Quran Holy Quran Surah no 2 verses no 161,162 about Atheists and Non-Muslim’s dead bodies and their souls in the life hereafter. “Indeed, those who disbelieved and died while they were disbelievers, upon them is the curse of Allah, and of angels, and of all human beings together, in a way that they will remain in it forever. Neither the punishment will be lightened for them, nor will they be given respite". Holy Quran Surah no 3 verse no 91, “Those who disbelieved and die as disbelievers, even an Earth-full of gold shall never be accepted from any of them, even if one were to offer it as ransom. They are the ones for whom there is a painful punishment, and for them there are no helpers". So, it is 100% proof that all kind of logic, all kind of thinking, all books, beliefs, religions and life styles are incomplete, or cancelled or false since the time of last prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). (2) It is perfect that the Fire is a nature. It does not have any capacity to save any human body in it. So, if a Muslim goes in it without using any chemicals and he is immune to burn, then it will be a miracle and a 100% proof on truth of Islam. But look how intransigents are all Atheists and Non-Muslims that they do not agree to demonstrate such miracle and if we Muslims are ready to demonstrate such miracle (by the mercy of Allah) then they are not even willing to convert to Islam. Dear Atheists and non-Muslims, I ask you that if a Muslim goes in Fire without using any chemical on his body in front of world media and he is immune to burn in it, then will you all convert to Islam or not? If yes, then fix a time, date and place and start announcement in whole world because you are 5 billion and it is impossible that we enter in Fire for every Atheists and Non-Muslims for proving the truth of Islam.
Jifpop09 says2014-02-27T19:09:16.6860591-06:00
I submit. I will convert to Islam.
RebelRebelDixieDixie01 says2014-02-28T13:39:16.1182154-06:00
Wait, you're joking right?
LeftyBuddhist says2014-03-17T17:50:01.6207319-05:00
Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. The question wasn't worded too well: How can you compare which is best? It's like asking somebody to compare strawberries to watching a football game. As for which is best in terms of moral beliefs, I would obviously have to say the Buddhist philosophy.
demonlord343 says2014-03-17T19:15:33.1232542-05:00
Abraralam, this is where you, my friend, are incorrect. One religion will not bring peace. We can look back on the history of this world, with all of them imposing one religion. People will always choose to not believe. You can not deny the realism in that. People will choose to go astray. It won't bring peace, it will bring chaos. That ideal has a good idea in mind, but it just doesn't work. The only way to keep a relative sort of peace is to allow a choice to be made. Why? You have to make choices in order to change. That is why some countries are stuck today. They do not wish to evolve their beliefs, which means that their morals are stuck in the same place. Unfortunately, however, morals have to evolve. They must change. In the end, that is how humans become better. We change our morals and views in order to become greater. No matter the religion, no matter the beliefs, if you do not have a good set of morals, then what is the point behind religion? Thus, when you choose a religion, choose the one that you think that is best for you to learn from. If you don't choose one, then that is okay. That is your choice to live your life off of evidence. But hey, its not like the people who follow religions are any crazier. People who follow religions often have a lack of evidence and can be kinda stubborn. How many of you can lie about that? People who follow religions run mostly on faith. Or the Bible. Or any other holy book. Thus, people who follow religions can get a little insane. Those of you that wish to argue that, I have one word. Crusades. My point is, everyone needs something that they can relate to and believe in, and one religion might not be the answer. Also, just because the Qur'an says its right, doesn't make it right... Can you honestly read the text of the Qur'an and find nothing wrong with it?
Macgreggor says2014-03-28T07:13:54.7360772-05:00
Although Atheist, I like the Amish
HappyLander says2014-04-13T14:30:35.1854062-05:00
There is no 'right religion' it all depends on perspective. It's just like saying, "carrots are better than cucumbers", that's just an opinion. You need evidence, but religion is all about believing, so it is likely there will be no evidence to prove that one religion is better, or more correct, than another.
L.D says2014-04-22T21:31:02.2061399-05:00
This was a very refreshing poll. Thank you.
Fight4Liberty says2014-05-03T17:41:35.4060962-05:00
Messianic Jew?
derplington says2014-05-13T07:48:14.3350219-05:00
Ugh... Theres so many, I can't tell which ones the right branch of Christianity.
Liesel says2014-05-13T22:18:51.3570000-05:00
Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Catholicism are all forms of Christianity. The Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites, as well as Seventh Day Adventists, Judeo-Christians, and Pentecostals are all Protestant forms of Christianity. They are all under the holy catholic church. The term catholic actually means universal or whole. They are simply denominations of the Christian Church. It isn't fair, in my humble opinion, to separate these categories. They are one, as Christ intended.
CMcD says2014-05-27T21:17:11.5418993-05:00
Okay "Mormonism" is not the correct name of any religion. "Mormon" is sometimes used as a nickname for "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints."
notsofast says2014-06-13T22:53:20.8725759-05:00
They are all right. We all worship the same God, just in different ways.
JasperFrancisShickadance says2014-07-13T20:45:10.3709347-05:00
A poll on this topic seems a bit useless.
ArcTImes says2014-07-13T21:15:40.8797158-05:00
Well, it's as useful as the rest of polls.
piratesrule101 says2014-08-21T10:37:06.4482903-05:00
Every body I'm not trolling but this was my old account
Max.Wallace says2014-11-06T19:14:49.2466400-06:00
Deism would be on the poll, but it is not a religion. Well writ poll.
Max.Wallace says2014-11-13T17:55:46.8170269-06:00
Islam is right? Which Islam?
penguin558 says2014-11-22T15:05:15.8252962-06:00
There is no option for Pastafarian
IsaiahSC says2014-11-29T23:07:21.8145022-06:00
Religion isn't right nor wrong.
JasperFrancisShickadance says2014-11-30T13:48:27.9566509-06:00
Isaiah, why? What if YOU are wrong? *duh duh DUUUUH*
ashkan says2014-12-04T20:00:35.2924288-06:00
None is right.
Max.Wallace says2014-12-19T18:24:22.9844073-06:00
I am pretty sure that Deists saw this a long time ago. Look at the poll results, the facts do not lie, at least not as often as religions.
Kvasir says2014-12-20T05:12:09.0007712-06:00
Pastafarianism must be added.
ObamasM0mma says2014-12-26T06:35:19.0363179-06:00
In this life, nothing is 100% certain. We all know our 5 senses lie. But there is varying levels of probability. If 1 person comes up to you and says he saw god but nobody else did, You'd probably tell him to fly a kite. If a hand full of people did, You'd probably say their crazy. But ask them for solid evidence. If 3 million people say they witnessed god, all at the same time, would you believe them then? The 3 million witnesses is what happened In Judaism. The probability of it being correct is much much higher then any other religion. But then you look at Christianity which builds itself off of Judaism. The New testament is believed to have about 9 authors. The entire religion bases everything on the pre determined conclusion that those 9 people are correct. But there is no evidence they are correct. Would you side with the 9, or the 3 million? Which would you think has a higher chance of being true? But then if you look inside Christianity you see that the 1st author of the New Testament (Paul) didn't even know Jesus. But yet he wrote many of the books of the New Testament. He says he saw an angel that told him about Jesus, but nobody else witnessed it. What would you believe the probability of Paul being correct If he is the 1 and only witness?. Practically 0.0001% chance he was right. If you believe in what 9 "witnesses" wrote as your religion, you would also be just as likely to be correct if you jumped to a seperate religion that had the same amount of witnesses.
Heraclitus says2015-02-16T10:01:28.4251186-06:00
You cannot possibly know which one is correct.
Drake_Phoenix says2015-04-22T07:39:59.4173358-05:00
I am Atheist by religion, Buddhist by philosophy. That being said, I believe that if you believe something is 'right', then it is. . . For you. Everything is perspective.
BIGC says2015-05-12T22:02:03.3509430-05:00
Lol Amish......
AllahoAkbar says2015-05-13T16:54:07.1483314-05:00
I personally think the answer is very easy actually, all you have to do is remove from your list any religion that says God can be a tree or an animal or an object, then remove any religion that based primarily on location or certain ethnicity, then remove any religion that does not accept new members (I mean what will be the point any way?), then remove any religion that is not a religion (Lol), all you have left with is Islam and Christianity, then ask yourself if God is desperate enough to get himself tortured and crucified then buried in the ground for your Sins, if yes then you are a Christian, if you believe that God have the power to Forgive any 1 without the mess, then Welcome to Islam.
Max.Wallace says2015-06-06T20:35:20.3525601-05:00
Atheism is a religion, and not right.
The.Dude says2015-08-12T04:32:38.9451860Z
You left out dudeism!!!
Nickey says2015-08-30T00:23:12.5629297Z
Hi this is my new account I made this poll
Taj1217 says2015-09-28T07:11:54.2986721Z
Haha while scrolling down I accidentally clicked on Scientology and can't figure out how to unvote it. In my opinion, there is no proof of any one religion. However you cannot prove it wrong either
Thescarecrow066 says2015-10-01T23:06:21.0578823Z
This post is biased, this is just a oppinion state it should not be which religon is correct...
AnonymousNobody says2015-10-21T01:08:24.6760763Z
Jainism, traditionally known as Jaina dharma, is an Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings and emphasizes spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life. Practitioners believe that non-violenc... + Nazi's
Crux_Cheetah says2016-01-08T09:42:37.6066123Z
I think none of the religions created by human imagination have a reasonable probability of being true. I think no matter how much we imagine, unless we prove it, imagination is worthless. The truth that no religion is right may hurt people, but it shouldn't stop a person from believing in a religion for fun, the only thing a person should do, is stop trying to convince others to believe in a religion.
RavenDove says2016-01-20T21:27:50.0942465Z
Ya know ... There is no truth that can be said for ALL people. You choose which makes the most sense to YOU as a person.
AIDYL_LLEWDIT says2016-01-25T07:31:58.9006186Z
There is no right or wrong religion. It is a matter of opinion. In fact, no religion has actually be proven true and no religion has been proven untrue. All religions are false until proven true. That is my opinion.
AIDYL_LLEWDIT says2016-01-25T07:32:51.0527558Z
There is no right or wrong religion. It is a matter of opinion. In fact, no religion has actually be proven true and no religion has been proven untrue. All religions are false until proven true. That is my opinion.
RandomGuy4Life says2016-06-12T23:29:01.2650092Z
Seeing as there is no evidence supporting a God, or Gods, why is it then reasonable to argue which of them is real. You can ask these questions after you can present evidence for a creator. But only after you can prove that such a being exists or has existed.
RandomGuy4Life says2016-06-12T23:31:17.2425329Z
Seeing as there is no evidence supporting a God, or Gods, why is it then reasonable to argue which of them is real. You can ask these questions after you can present evidence for a creator. But only after you can prove that such a being exists or has existed.
RandomGuy4Life says2016-06-12T23:32:32.8718177Z
Seeing as there is no evidence supporting a God, or Gods, why is it then reasonable to argue which of them is real. You can ask these questions after you can present evidence for a creator. But only after you can prove that such a being exists or has existed.
KthulhuHimself says2016-08-05T06:13:37.2092288Z
Heh; zero votes for Jainism.
harrytruman says2016-08-28T15:57:34.0874614Z
Snugent433 says2016-09-27T09:34:25.3618434Z
Who knows
Snugent433 says2016-09-27T09:37:48.8027475Z
Who knows
emzylov3 says2017-01-18T00:44:25.1371612Z
Would just like to say about Jehovah's Witnesses, that the governing body is not directed by men, but by God and Jesus, so our religion is not run by man.
emzylov3 says2017-01-18T00:45:57.9883612Z
Would just like to say about Jehovah's Witnesses, that the governing body is not directed by men, but by God and Jesus, so our religion is not run by man.
Croissantify says2017-03-08T01:38:01.9912990Z
Judaism FTW
Jakarta says2018-01-05T01:17:20.2195788Z
Shadowmasterkin says2018-04-13T08:50:28.7671226Z
Think of this there is one God and every religion is a different view of him or her God is any race or gender God looks like what your version is.
Shadowmasterkin says2018-04-13T08:51:23.5075226Z
Think of this there is one God and every religion is a different view of him or her God is any race or gender God looks like what your version is.
Debating_Horse says2018-07-11T15:56:32.4090901Z
Though I am atheist, I would choose Christianity.
leila123 says2019-03-19T15:11:26.9877179Z
God is real
MyacronymissimplyCEE says2019-12-15T04:59:17.7009807Z
Read your Bertrand Russell for surprising results. "Either all the religions of the world are wrong. . . Or one of them, Is right. " I suggest Dr. Walter R. Martin's evangelistic message, In how to combat Bahaiism. He delves at length into a Metaphysics course he'd taken, Taught by a noted atheist. Said unbelieving prof, Using a pie graph, Russell quotes, And elimination throw deductive reasoning, Focusing ONLY on The Nature of God, Narrowed it down to Christianity. I'm not voting, Here, Because to separate Protestants and Catholics for such a broad purpose, Is fallacious.
MyacronymissimplyCEE says2019-12-15T04:59:48.1179286Z
Read your Bertrand Russell for surprising results. "Either all the religions of the world are wrong. . . Or one of them, Is right. " I suggest Dr. Walter R. Martin's evangelistic message, In how to combat Bahaiism. He delves at length into a Metaphysics course he'd taken, Taught by a noted atheist. Said unbelieving prof, Using a pie graph, Russell quotes, And elimination throw deductive reasoning, Focusing ONLY on The Nature of God, Narrowed it down to Christianity. I'm not voting, Here, Because to separate Protestants and Catholics for such a broad purpose, Is fallacious.
Handy_Andy says2020-05-05T15:18:26.9424850Z
My penis
Handy_Andy says2020-05-05T15:19:14.0541830Z
My penis and it has followers too. . .
NateSloan20 says2020-06-27T04:15:59.6797467Z
I am not particularly religious in the sense of following commandments or rules. Not because I am in any way rebellious, But because something could be good for one person and not good for another. I do agree with Taoism, Though. I like the peace and culture of it and the general acceptance for everybody. I think finding peace and love with others and yourself will answer most of the world's problems.
GuyIncognito1 says2020-08-14T14:22:07.3560481Z
Scientology is not religion. Non-Abrahamic religions do not worship the one true God. Islam believes in the false prophet Muhammad. Judaism refuses to accept the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Protestant denominations are heretical. The Roman Catholic Church has been heretical since the Second Vatican Council was formed. The only faithful religions are Traditional Roman Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. I attend mass at a Traditional Roman Catholic organisation named the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX), Because I am more familiar with Roman Catholic tradition and the Latin mass. But Eastern Christian denominations are right as well.
GuyIncognito1 says2020-08-14T14:23:28.5691275Z
Scientology is not religion. Non-Abrahamic religions do not worship the one true God. Islam believes in the false prophet Muhammad. Judaism refuses to accept the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Protestant denominations are heretical. The Roman Catholic Church has been heretical since the Second Vatican Council was formed. The only faithful religions are Traditional Roman Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. I attend mass at a Traditional Roman Catholic organisation named the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX), Because I am more familiar with Roman Catholic tradition and the Latin mass. But Eastern Christian denominations are right as well.
GuyIncognito1 says2020-08-14T14:24:45.1022369Z
Scientology is not religion. Non-Abrahamic religions do not worship the one true God. Islam believes in the false prophet Muhammad. Judaism refuses to accept the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. Protestant denominations are heretical. The Roman Catholic Church has been heretical since the Second Vatican Council was formed. The only faithful religions are Traditional Roman Catholicism, Eastern Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. I attend mass at a Traditional Roman Catholic organisation named the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX), Because I am more familiar with Roman Catholic tradition and the Latin mass. But Eastern Christian denominations are right as well.
rockagomee says2020-11-19T10:37:51.6176685Z
All of them are real. And they're all equally good at existing for no good reason.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.