Being an Atheist in Ireland is a Cnut

Sam Vimes

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

I don't think that is what he's saying as he specifically said we have no evidence, which is not true. At best it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black because he has no evidence of his god either but it's actually worse than that because we have lots of evidence and he has none

Dudess

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I think a lot of agnostics would have the exact same beliefs as a lot of atheists

True in my case.

but don't identify with the word "atheist" because of the stigma surrounding the term.

Definitely not in my case. I don't think there's as much stigma surrounding atheist as there is surrounding believer. I wouldn't give a flying **** about identifying myself as an atheist... but I won't, because I'm not. An atheist doesn't allow for the possibility there is a higher power. I do.

Dudess

Dudess wrote: »

Meant to get back to Dave! earlier on that one:

That argument doesn't cut it for me. And the reason is: while there is no solid evidence that god exists, I think there is evidence that a deity could exist - not a kind, loving one looking after us (I certainly believe, just thinking about how ****ed up the world has always been, that that's utter bollocksology) but literally just a higher power that's simply "there" - neither benevolent nor malevolent. What's the evidence? The universe, living things... why are they all here? How did they come about? They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

In fairness dudess, "i dont know" -/-> "must be a god/higher power".
We could simply just say we're ignorant on the universe coming to be, without having to become agnostic on it.

Stercus Accidit

Dudess wrote: »

They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

Why not?

There is plenty of work going into uncovering the origins of the universe, but to claim you don't understand it therfore it must be a god(by any other name) is a very theist thing to do.

I'll remain atheist, I don't believe there is a god, there is no evidence of it, logic applies here. If along the lines some evidence crops up that our universe filled with rules is all some quantum computer running WOW on a teen angels desktop, I'll consider that evidence, but for now, I havn't seen anything to indicate that.

Sam Vimes

Dudess wrote: »

Meant to get back to Dave! earlier on that one:

That argument doesn't cut it for me. And the reason is: while there is no solid evidence that god exists, I think there is evidence that a deity could exist - not a kind, loving one looking after us (I certainly believe, just thinking about how ****ed up the world has always been, that that's utter bollocksology) but literally just a higher power that's simply "there" - neither benevolent nor malevolent. What's the evidence? The universe, living things... why are they all here? How did they come about? They can't just have emerged from a vacuum.

Sure they could. Think of it this way:

you say matter couldn't have just emerged from a vacuum and that a higher power must have created it but then this higher power must have just emerged from a vacuum. At some point in the past something had to emerge from nothing and I don't see why it had to be a higher power. It could just as easily have been matter in a process that we don't yet understand.

In fact it's far more likely that the matter was created in a natural process that we don't yet understand than that an infinitely complex supernatural being magically did it

Dudess

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

There is plenty of work going into uncovering the origins of the universe, but to claim you don't understand it therfore it must be a god(by any other name) is a very theist thing to do.

No, I said "therefore it could be a higher power", not "must". I find I'm unable to rule out that possibility, hence my stance. But that's just me - I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else.

Dudess

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you say matter couldn't have just emerged from a vacuum and that a higher power must have created it but then this higher power must have just emerged from a vacuum. At some point in the past something had to emerge from nothing and I don't see why it had to be a higher power. It could just as easily have been matter in a process that we don't yet understand.

In fact it's far more likely that the matter was created in a natural process that we don't yet understand than that an infinitely complex supernatural being magically did it

A very good point. But until I know what the facts are, I won't take an absolutist stance, I'll just remain on the fence - and that's what I think agnosticism is: a form of fence-sitting.

Doctor DooM

I'm more interested in hearing where Darwin stated religions aren't real, tbh.

Stercus Accidit

Dudess wrote: »

No, I said "therefore it could be a higher power", not "must". I find I'm unable to rule out that possibility, hence my stance. But that's just me - I'm not claiming to speak for anyone else.

Ye know what, I can respect that.

Claiming to know anything one way or the other without evidence is what we don't want.

philologos

Upward Spiral wrote: »

My mam is up in my house for the weekend and it being Sunday morning, she tried to make me go to mass with her. I refused, using the old "but I'm an Atheist" reasoning to broach the subject. So off she went, noticeably indifferent to my proclamation of faithlessness.

So you expect your belief that God doesn't exist to stop your mother from going to church? If she believes, so what? Deal with it, we have freedom of conscience in this country.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

She returned an hour later with some of her friends for tea and a Chocolate Kimberley in my kitchen. I went in to feed the dog and mam said to her friends "he says he's an Atheist, so he wouldn't go to mass with me". The other women laughed, and basically dismissed that such a thing existed.

I think that might have been a bit too far for the other women to suggest. You could try asking your mother to respect your views on religion and not to spout them to others as a general point of conversation if you don't want people to give you that kind of attention for them.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

I tried my best to explain my position on the whole religion thing, and even quoted Darwin. It had little effect on them.

Why should it have any effect on them? Why do you care so much for almost evangelising your atheism?

Upward Spiral wrote: »

One of the women is a real Jesus freak, and part of the parish brigade. She looked visibly shocked at what I was saying and didn't even crack a smile.

She obviously cared for your salvation.

Upward Spiral wrote: »

Do any of you experience such rejection of your views by family or friends?

Not in my family, I'm a Christian. However amongst my friends, some are very critical of my stance for accepting that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour. However, some are more agnostic about the issue and ask me about how Christianity works in my life and I appreciate that and I like to share about what it is like for me so that others might know more about God, or even come to know Him one day.

ntlbell

I think one of the biggest problems is people getting mixed up out of sometimes ignorance, sometimes stupidity.

It's not about if a religion is _real_ or not

all religions are _real_ god or no god.

If there's one all mighty power as dudess thinks is possible has nothing to do with religion really.

I do find it odd tho that mature, intelligent folk talk about "higher powers"

I think in years to come people will look back on it and it will be regarded as some form of mental illness

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote: »

An atheist doesn't allow for the possibility there is a higher power. I do.

You have to define what you mean by a "higher power" really. It's a very vague and essentially meaningless term.

If you find yourself unable to define it in any meaningful sense, then what exactly is it that you allow for the possibility of again?

I'm not an atheist because I think the possibility of a "god" existing is impossible, I'm an atheist because I've never been given a proper explanation or definition of what a "god" is. I can't evaluate whether something might possibly exist if I have no proper definition of what it actually is, and therefore I can't say I'm agnostic because I have no real idea of what it is I'm allowing the possibility of.

Zillah

Dudess wrote: »

A very good point. But until I know what the facts are, I won't take an absolutist stance, I'll just remain on the fence - and that's what I think agnosticism is: a form of fence-sitting.

Don't you see how inconsistent this is? You don't believe in fairies, vampires or unicorns; you're taking an 'absolutist' stance there, why not with God? I'd suggest that the reason you're making the God question special is because belief in God is very popular, which says nothing about how likely it is to be true.

A reasonable atheist does not say "There is definitely no God", a reasonable atheist says "I see no reason to believe in a God", in just the same way you say "I have no reason to believe in unicorns".

There's nothing "absolutist" about it, and it's certainly hugely unfair to equate it to the absurd faith of a theist.

Dudess

Jakkass wrote: »

So you expect your belief that God doesn't exist to stop your mother from going to church? If she believes, so what? Deal with it, we have freedom of conscience in this country.

I don't think the OP said that at all - the opposite in fact: that his/her mother was making him/her going to mass, rather than (s)he making the mother NOT go to mass.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think the OP said that at all - the opposite in fact: that his/her mother was making him/her going to mass, rather than (s)he making the mother NOT go to mass.

His / her mother asked him if he wanted to go, and (s)he refused. Fair enough in my books.

Snowie

Upward Spiral wrote: »

My mam is up in my house for the weekend and it being Sunday morning, she tried to make me go to mass with her. I refused, using the old "but I'm an Atheist" reasoning to broach the subject. So off she went, noticeably indifferent to my proclamation of faithlessness.

She returned an hour later with some of her friends for tea and a Chocolate Kimberley in my kitchen. I went in to feed the dog and mam said to her friends "he says he's an Atheist, so he wouldn't go to mass with me". The other women laughed, and basically dismissed that such a thing existed.

I tried my best to explain my position on the whole religion thing, and even quoted Darwin. It had little effect on them.

One of the women is a real Jesus freak, and part of the parish brigade. She looked visibly shocked at what I was saying and didn't even crack a smile.

Do any of you experience such rejection of your views by family or friends?

noo as my hold fammilly bar my mum who's (budist) are completel anti church god bothering type's....
and we just ignore her mombo jumbo...

philologos

Zillah wrote: »

There's nothing "absolutist" about it, and it's certainly hugely unfair to equate it to the absurd faith of a theist.

Agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism for a very big reason, if you cannot know God's existence, there is really no point to dive into the deep end of atheism or theism unless you have indications to back up your reasoning for doing so. I chose theism because I felt I had satisfied this for myself.

I prefer speaking to agnostics about spiritual matters when they ask me to atheists, purely for the reason that they don't think that they have my faith worked out, and they are actually curious in what I have to say instead of having a pointless debate that leads nowhere with an atheist.

Dudess

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You have to define what you mean by a "higher power" really. It's a very vague and essentially meaningless term.

If you find yourself unable to define it in any meaningful sense, then what exactly is it that you allow for the possibility of again?

That's just it - I don't know. I'm missing so many answers that I feel I simply can't say outright "I believe/don't believe in xyz". Being a theist - a no-no for me because I don't know whether there's a god; being an atheist - also a no-no because I don't know whether there isn't a god.

I'm not an atheist because I think the possibility of a "god" existing is impossible, I'm an atheist because I've never been given a proper explanation or definition of what a "god" is. I can't evaluate whether something might possibly exist if I have no proper definition of what it actually is, and therefore I can't say I'm agnostic because I have no real idea of what it is I'm allowing the possibility of.

Good point.

Zillah wrote: »

Don't you see how inconsistent this is? You don't believe in fairies, vampires or unicorns; you're taking an 'absolutist' stance there, why not with God? I'd suggest that the reason you're making the God question special is because belief in God is very popular, which says nothing about how likely it is to be true.

As I said earlier: the universe, living things. Stercus made some good points on that though, which is making me reconsider my stance.

A reasonable atheist does not say "There is definitely no God", a reasonable atheist says "I see no reason to believe in a God", in just the same way you say "I have no reason to believe in unicorns".

There's nothing "absolutist" about it, and it's certainly hugely unfair to equate it to the absurd faith of a theist.

I still feel the above is "absolutist". But I'm not sayiing all atheists are zealots, in the same way not all theists are zealots.

ntlbell

Jakkass wrote: »

I prefer speaking to agnostics about spiritual matters when they ask me to atheists, purely for the reason that they don't think that they have my faith worked out, and they are actually curious in what I have to say instead of having a pointless debate that leads nowhere with an atheist.

I think that's a very unfair generalisation.

Most atheist's I know are very interested in all religions and take parts of all religions to use in their daily lives we can all learn from aspects from different parts of religion.

You don't need to stop conversing with atheists you need to stop conversing with idiots.

shamblertine

Dinner wrote: »

Similarily the self satisfied manner in which some christians attack atheists with wild generalisations and an air of smugness is equally as bad. As below.

Where did I say I was a christian or believe in god? I'm simply commenting on the hypocrisy of atheists.

Capt'n Midnight

Captain Mords Spiced Bum wrote: »

I killed an atheist once, and I'd do it again.

Were they a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist ?

Elmo

I am not overly religious, TBH my sister is going that way and it is a terrible bore TBH.

I don't go around stating my love for god or my true believe in god. I sometimes go to mass.

However I find others very ignorant at times in this country. Those who don't believe in god or a higher being tend to look down on others that do.

For example the other day in work someone was trying to tell me that David Blain was the modern day Jesus. Now I was offended by his casual remark i.e. really no one believes in god anymore and it is unlikely for someone of my age to believe in such silly things. I didn't say anything because I might of offended him and also I am not to interest in getting into a deep conversation about Religion anyway etc etc.

I find Atheist and Believers in your face about the subject, my view is I believe you don't, lets leave it at that. I recognize Darwin but I also recognize God.

Another time a guy in college was giving out about Catholic Ireland. He suggested that on Good Friday that Pubs and clubs should be open. Now I am not too fuzzy about the whole Good Friday thing at all but I did tell him: -

1. It is good to have a day with out drink, and both Xmas day and Good Friday show up Ireland's Drink Culture.
2. You know a Civil Servant could pick an arbitrary Friday each year, why bother changing the tradition just because you seem offend by such a silly little day.
3. Protestants celebrate Easter too.

I didn't number the points out for him and my argument had nothing to do with my faith I just thought his point was pointless.

TBH I find it hard to believe in a God nowadays because of my peers than most people find difficult not to believe because of their parents.

In other words get over yourself. It isn't something to have a big argument with your parents about. Both you and they will regret it in the future. My parents wouldn't be too unhappy since they go around stating "Have you become an Atheist?" when I don't go to mass, I think they would be happier, at least there was a reason for not going to mass.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

So you expect your belief that God doesn't exist to stop your mother from going to church? If she believes, so what? Deal with it, we have freedom of conscience in this country.

That's not what he said. He said she was trying to make him go with her

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote: »

Agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism for a very big reason, if you cannot know God's existence, there is really no point to dive into the deep end of atheism or theism unless you have indications to back up your reasoning for doing so. I chose theism because I felt I had satisfied this for myself.

What would you make of my reason for being an atheist over an agnostic in my reply to Dudess?

philologos

Dinner wrote: »

Similarily the self satisfied manner in which some christians attack atheists with wild generalisations and an air of smugness is equally as bad. As below.

You're right. We have to do better. Many of us need to refind what the truth of Jesus was, and how we can better relate to you. I'm sure that I fail at this occasionally too.

ntlbell wrote: »

I think that's a very unfair generalisation.

Most atheist's I know are very interested in all religions and take parts of all religions to use in their daily lives we can all learn from aspects from different parts of religion.

You don't need to stop conversing with atheists you need to stop conversing with idiots.

I can safely say that most of the atheists I have met aren't as you describe, although I have met some who are.

I draw a line, there is no point in my eyes in discussing my religion with those who merely wish to ridicule it, or who aren't actually interested in finding out anything new from discussing with me.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I prefer speaking to agnostics about spiritual matters when they ask me to atheists, purely for the reason that they don't think that they have my faith worked out, and they are actually curious in what I have to say instead of having a pointless debate that leads nowhere with an atheist.

In fairness Jakkass, having debated you several times on the matter, it goes nowhere because you don't give a crap what the atheist is saying. He's wrong because the bible says so and that's the end of it. The same thing you're accusing atheists of doing. When you say it goes nowhere it really means you can't convince him god exists by quoting bible verses

edit:If you think I'm wrong, what do you mean by it leads nowhere? What it says to me is you want to tell people about your beliefs and have them listen and hopefully believe you, that you're not actually interested in debating someone who disagrees with you because there is no possible chance that you might be wrong. You're not there to be convinced, you're there to convince

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

Agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism for a very big reason

Only in a very strict philosophical sense, a sense that requires us to remain agnostic in regards to anything and everything. You and I cannot ultimately be sure that one of us is not merely a brain in a jar being fed an artificial reality. Technically I am a agnostic about the fact that I physically possess this body in the universe I perceive.

But if we're talking about a more naturalistic approach, being agnostic about God is no more reasonable than being agnostic about unicorns.

i think i've finally got mam to understand i'm an atheist and have been since i was about 6.. logic back then was that if santa isn't real, neither is god.

still makes me goto christmas mass tho

Stercus Accidit

Jakkass wrote: »

Agnosticism is more reasonable than atheism for a very big reason, if you cannot know God's existence, there is really no point to dive into the deep end of atheism or theism unless you have indications to back up your reasoning for doing so. I chose theism because I felt I had satisfied this for myself.

I prefer speaking to agnostics about spiritual matters when they ask me to atheists, purely for the reason that they don't think that they have my faith worked out, and they are actually curious in what I have to say instead of having a pointless debate that leads nowhere with an atheist.

I dissagree here,

I can respect some facets of agnosticism, the idea that one can't know for sure so allows all possibilities some credence, without deciding definitely one way or the other.

But.

That is also an atheist trait, we don't know there isnt a god, but we also don't know there isnt (cliche alert) a magic unicorn in my back garden, a flying spaghetti monster spewing fire and raviolli, heck, you don't even know if I have a back garden or not, but some of these ideas are possible, some ludicrous.

The ludicrous ones are discarded, the credible ones are equally treated with anticipation of evidence. No one is going to know I have a back garden until I prove that, or give evidence to that effect.

The unicorns and flying pasta, equally, you can't know they exist, until I give you evidence, I can't though, I don't have any.


Having seen a picture of my backgarden, and me in it smiling and waving, with todays copy of the star or sun (mmm tabloidy) and maybe an esb bill with name and address, that would be evidence to suggest its my back garden, further evidence such as id, deeds gps coordinates etc. could further bolster this until it could be considered pretty much 99% true it my back garden.

Now, I offer only a token scarp of paper describing the unicorn, no other evidence, I might ask for money of devotion because of the unicorn, what would you do, would you believe I had one? Would you know I had one?
Would you know I didn't, and therefore sit on the fence saying it was a possibility.

I would imagine most people would discard any notion that it was true, and the possiblity of it being so, being so improbable, that you would believe otherwise.


Theres no disproof here, but a with lack of logical evidence, the logical thing is to say its probably not true, and not to believe it, to believe even that there isnt a unicorn, or god.
No atheist will say there is definitely no god, as some theist would ask for proof. What proof to any effect can be obtained regarding the non-existant? It cant be studied, measured or evidence given either way, but thats not the nature of atheism, my stance is given an overwhelming lack of evidence, and the ludicrous nature of the claim (some people do have back gardens and it is documented, this is less ludicrous, no-one has a unicorn with magic powers), one shouldn't believe in it, I don't believe there is a higher power, or theistic god, but don't ask me to prove otherwise though, because you'll be spending a lot of time scratching your head, trying to disprove my unicorn.

Oh yeah, he's invisible too.

Zillah

Elmo wrote: »

1. It is good to have a day with out drink

You are absolutely entitled to not drink any day you like. That gives you no right to forbid me and mine from doing so, however.

Galvasean

Dudess wrote: »

I think what (s)he means is, despite the evidence atheists have, there is still no solid evidence there isn't a deity.

Dave! wrote: »

There doesn't need to be... If there is evidence for something, you'll believe in it. If there's not, you won't. Why would you require evidence against something in order to 'not believe' in it? There's no evidence against fairies or leprauchauns...

The phrase 'incredible claims call for incredible evidence' comes to mind. If someone tells you something outlandish sounding then the burden of proof lies on them to prove the arent talking out of their proverbial backside, not the other way around.

SDooM wrote: »

I'm more interested in hearing where Darwin stated religions aren't real, tbh.

Heck, he mentions God in the Origin Of Species (in a non-dismissive way).

Zillah wrote: »

But if we're talking about a more naturalistic approach, being agnostic about God is no more reasonable than being agnostic about unicorns.

I would love it if tomorrow a group of palaeontologists (great guys BTW) dug up the remains of an extinct relative of the horse that had a long horn pertruding from it's forhead.

JPA

The Internet loves these debates.
But I have never ever seen someone change their opinion from the the one they started with.

Dudess

Zillah wrote: »

Only in a very strict philosophical sense, a sense that requires us to remain agnostic in regards to anything and everything. You and I cannot ultimately be sure that one of us is not merely a brain in a jar being fed an artificial reality. Technically I am a agnostic about the fact that I physically possess this body in the universe I perceive.

But if we're talking about a more naturalistic approach, being agnostic about God is no more reasonable than being agnostic about unicorns.

Very fair point, and taken on board. I suppose, in light of the above, I am an atheist so. It feels wrong to identify myself as one though. An atheist does not believe in any possibility of a god whatsoever, I can't bring myself to be of the same persuasion when I don't have all the answers.

dublinario

Galvasean wrote: »

I would love it if tomorrow a group of palaeontologists (great guys BTW) dug up the remains of an extinct relative of the horse that had a long horn pertruding from it's forhead.

This debate always comes back to unicorns, doesn't it?

Elmo

Zillah wrote: »

You are absolutely entitled to not drink any day you like. That gives you no right to forbid me and mine from doing so, however.

I am just stating that as a country we have a drink problem and I think both of those days reflect that as I said this has nothing to do with religion, for me it just happens that both day are traditional religious if tomorrow to government changed the days that a pub closes down from Good Friday to the Friday before the Bank Holiday weekend in May I wouldn't have a problem. I just think it is a good health campaign. Sin É.

Also your not prevent from drinking since most people go to the Offy on Holy Thursday, and well Christmas is only about drinking in this country. I am just suggesting its good to close pubs etc down on two days of the year, I am sure pub employees are happy to have two weekends off.

ntlbell

JPA wrote: »

The Internet loves these debates.
But I have never ever seen someone change their opinion from the the one they started with.

Dudess wrote: »

Very fair point, and taken on board. I suppose, in light of the above, I am an atheist so. It feels wrong to identify myself as one though. An atheist does not believe in any possibility of a god whatsoever, I can't bring myself to be of the same persuasion when I don't have all the answers.

Miracles do happen.

Ass

I hate most Atheists with a passion. Most are really smug and think that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an idiot. They go around debating with everyone making sure everyone knows that they don't believe in a higher power when nobody actually gives a shit/ isn't interested.


Being an athiest in Ireland is not hard. Being an annoying prick is.

JPA

ntlbell wrote: »

Miracles do happen.

Yay!

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fairness Jakkass, having debated you several times on the matter, it goes nowhere because you don't give a crap what the atheist is saying. He's wrong because the bible says so and that's the end of it. The same thing you're accusing atheists of doing. When you say it goes nowhere it really means you can't convince him god exists by quoting bible verses

I think we can be both hardened enough. I don't consider that a good thing, and I think most of it is due to tone. I would entertain another discussion with you at another point if you would be willing for a second, not to assume that you know everything that is to be known about the average Christian experience, or about the Christian faith. That's all I expect in a discussion. That's what agnostics do better than atheists, IMO.

dublinario

dublinario wrote: »

This debate always comes back to unicorns, doesn't it?

Unicorns or god, yeah.

bigeasyeah

There is a forum that caters especially for topics like this.

Zillah

Memetic triumph!

Dudess, there is a big difference between saying "I do not believe in God" and saying "There is absolutely no possibility that God could exist". I don't believe in Vampires but I still wouldn't say it's absolutely impossible. Evidence can, nay must, convince me.

bigeasyeah

bigeasyeah wrote: »

There is a forum that caters especially for topics like this.

7 pages of posts in, i'd say your right.. after hours is catering for it quite well.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I think we can be both hardened enough. I don't consider that a good thing, and I think most of it is due to tone. I would entertain another discussion with you at another point if you would be willing for a second, not to assume that you know everything that is to be known about the average Christian experience, or about the Christian faith. That's all I expect in a discussion. That's what agnostics do better than atheists, IMO.

The problem there Jakkass is that I have quoted examples of things from religion and you have given me interpretations that completely go against everything I have ever been told on the matter, all the conventional wisdom on the matter, all forms of logic and what appears to be written in front of me, all because, in my opinion, you don't want it to mean what it actually means because that doesn't fit with what you want to be true. For example,

Chronicles 15:13 wrote:

and whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/15-13.htm

That is quite clearly our benevolent and loving creator telling us to kill anyone who doesn't believe in him. It is also in direct conflict to the bit about "thou shalt not kill" from Exodus. How do you reconcile that with your idea of a moral god? Or do you agree with it?

shamblertine

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

That is also an atheist trait, we don't know there isnt a god, but we also don't know there isnt (cliche alert) a magic unicorn in my back garden, a flying spaghetti monster spewing fire and raviolli, heck, you don't even know if I have a back garden or not, but some of these ideas are possible, some ludicrous.

The difference is, theres plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

Sam Vimes

shamblertine wrote: »

The difference is, theres plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

True, and there is evidence that Paris exists which is where the book the Da Vinci code was set. That does not mean the the Da Vinci code is a documentary.

shamblertine

Galvasean wrote: »

I would love it if tomorrow a group of palaeontologists (great guys BTW) dug up the remains of an extinct relative of the horse that had a long horn pertruding from it's forhead.

Theres no need to dig anything up:

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/unicorns-are-re.html

dublinario

shamblertine wrote: »

The difference is, theres plenty of evidence that Jesus existed.

He's right. A "JESUS WOZ ERE" scrawled on a freshly unearthed temple wall in Bethlehem was recently carbon-dated to 15 AD.

Elmo

zeppe wrote: »

Do you know what really cracks me up? The f**kin "immaculate conception". WTF! It sounds like something Mary made up on the spot to Joseph, as a bare arsed sandal salesman legs it out the back window..Oh yeah, it probably was.

ATHEIST and proud

Mary is the Immaculate Conception she was born without sin.

bigeasyeah

Deleted User wrote: »

7 pages of posts in, i'd say your right.. after hours is catering for it quite well.

No it isnt.