Crap, I didn't leave fast enough. I never said that anyone knows where God came from. I only stated that science also does not know where the matter that is involved in it's hypothesis came from, and it never will because it's all an infinite process. Who can find the beginning of infinity?

There is plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed. That is rarely disputed.
It's when things get supernatural that the disagreement tends to start.

That is a poor argument against god because it is a good argument against the existence of anything and everything.
It is clearly not the case that nothing exists.

"quite unlike the generations after him, I must add. We, children, do not decompose so easily due to all the preservants we have consumed during our lifetimes"

thats what i meant

Care to share any links to the proog that Jesus did exist? :hmm: I'm kind of suprised about the "plenty of good evidence that Jesus existed" part as I've never heard anything solid.Ow yeh, and if any of this evidence is found in the Bible, it doesnt count. There's still parts missing from the different versions and stories of bible, so it just might be that one of the lost stories says at the end "Ow yeh, all this was just my imagination. Signed: Mullah, Drunken Sheppard. Gotcha!"

If there is one thing I'm sure about is we will all know the truth eventually.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It's the same as not believing in astrology. It's just that there is no word "nonastrologer" that can be unfairly stuck with all sorts of negative connotations.

Humanism, skepticism and antitheism can go along with atheism, but it is not necessary to hold those beliefs to be an atheist.

Where are the atheists who claim to be the sole dispensers of The Truth, based in some way on The Book, and who retreat to the impregnable fortress of the Sanctity and Mystery of Faith when questioned?

We can talk about religion.

What you're talking about is antitheism, which one can accept or reject based on evidence. And by your logic, only adherents of a faith can criticize elements of that faith. Which is a bit difficult to accept after 9/11.

What points? :hmm:

Thats church policy, making you afraid.

I laugh at the writing Tacitus, which reads:

Nero fastened the guilt of starting the blaze and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 14-37 at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Many present this as "evidence" of Jesus because it mentions "Christ". "Christ" translates to "Christus" which is Latin for "savior/chosen one". Unfortunately, people who do use this as "proof" obviously aren't aware of the number of people roaming around the Holy Land in those days who claimed to be the chosen ones of god or the gods.

A good quote about you die hard science freaks:

"The trouble with the world is not that people know too little, but that they know so many things that ain't so." - Mark Twain

-S

It's Christmas Eve, so shouldn't you be in church?

It's true that there where hundreds of Jewish rebels at the time. Jesus is about as
well documented as any other Jewish rebel. There isn't any particular reason to
doubt his existence, but nor is there any reason to get especially excited about it
out side of the context of the start of the Christianity cult.

Perfect proof that you are labeling without knowing. Thanks for pointing that out.

-S