I prefer

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Quote ="Standee"maybe he's referring to the episode of Only Fools and Horses where the statue cries, was a miracle!'" Amazingly boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian ... -with.html

Quote ="Standee"maybe he's referring to the episode of Only Fools and Horses where the statue cries, was a miracle!'" Amazingly boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian ... -with.html

Epic fail.

It's a euphemism for [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesusfairytale[/url

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18622363What would Jesus do?[/url

Quite so.
I am not saying he's right, just that he's not necessarily brainwashed.

I wonder if the author of that quote is feeling quite so smug now?

Do you think your post may offend some people?

Eh?
I can see past the small typo (mug = smug) but I haven't a clue what you mean.

Thanks, I've edited it now.



That quote is attributed to a very famous enemy of God. That individual will recently have had to give an account of himself. He will have had to explain his blasphemy, drunkenness, homosexual flings etc.

The Bible tells us that there is a Heaven and and Hell. I wonder which one he is in

No, do you and if so, why?

Neither.

I hate to shatter your illusions but his remains are probably in a (or some) laboratory fridge, after he donated his body to medical science. As an antitheist, he believed in neither heaven nor hell

Non-belief in something doesn't make it go away.

If a judge sentences a man to death, is he saved if he doesn't believe in the electric chair? Of course not. Hell exists whether you believe in it or not.

Sadly, I would guess that Hitchens is there right now.

One person's fervent belief/delusion does not constitute evidence. There are people in mental hospitals the world over who believe that they are Napoleon/Elvis/Florence Nightingale just as strongly as you believe that Jesus exists. The strength of their belief does not prove to anyone other than themselves that what they're saying is true.



Let's assume for a second that there is conclusive proof of a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth around 2,000 years ago, upon whose life/teachings the Christian religion is founded. No such proof exists, but I'm willing to overlook that fact for the sake of argument. Proof that Jesus the man existed still wouldn't be proof that he was the Son of God, that he performed any of his impressive parlour tricks, or that he was born of a virgin mother. It most certainly wouldn't prove the existence of God. Does the fact that we can prove L. Ron Hubbard's existence mean that Scientology is true?



What surrounds us has been shown by science [inot[/i to have been created in anything like the way The Bible describes. Evolution, to take but one example, is a hard fact. All of the available evidence supports it. Man being created by God, on the other hand, is not supported by a single shred of evidence. Your Bible is so far wide of the mark, it even states that God separated the light and the dark [ibefore[/i he made the objects that actually emit light.

Belief in something doesn't make it appear.



Hell does not exist, whether you believe in it or not.



Sadly? If he has been such an 'enemy of God' surely Hell is the least he deserves?

I thought we ended our discussions when you admitted you weren't open to any debate?

CH won't be smug, theres nothing left of him to be smug, he donated his body to science.

Let me ask you a very important question -

[iHave you been filled with the Spirit?[/i

If not, then you are by no means qualified to judge the experience of those who have been born again in Christ. I know I have everlasting life through Jesus as well as I know that this computer in front of me exists.

You (naively) place your faith in science and rubbish the spiritual experience of others. However you fail to realise that you interpret science in the exact same way we experience God – you use your senses. You observe results. We observe Jesus. Scientific results can be replicated by others. The gifts of the Spirit can be replicated by others.

Can you tell me why your sensual responses to scientific evidence are any different to my sensual responses to God?



Can you explain the explosion of the early church? Why the Apostles agreed to forsake their lives if Jesus was not the Son of God? Why the tomb was empty? Where Jesus’ body went?




Evolution is not hard fact. Are you millions of years old? No? Well then you have no observed any kind of macro-evolution.

Your last comment is so lamentable it’s not worth replying to, though I will for the benefit of anyone with half a brain who is reading this.

If God is all-powerful, what makes you think that he needs to create a light source in order to create light?

You still don't get it.

We all deserve Hell. I deserve it as much as Hitchens. However I have the humility to see my wrongdoing and have placed my faith in Christ.

Hell is a terrible punishment. Jesus took our punishment for us, and remember how bad his death was! Therefore I would hate to see anyone go to Hell, including Hitchens.

Look, I dearly wish I could be with you when you pop your clogs, just to see the (metaphorical) look on your face when you realise that you've had your leg lifted. There is no heaven, there is no hell, there is nowhere for you to go because there will be no you. There will be some dead flesh & bones that will either be incinerated or left for carrion. Either way, you won't have to worry because you will be D E A D.

Occasionally, though I generally prefer beer.



Whether you [ithink[/i you know it or not, you are unable to prove it. Which is why I said your beliefs were lacking in any evidential foundation. If the only standard of proof we had to adhere to was "I believe it, therefore it's true", science would still be in the dark ages. And if that were the case, the computer in front of you wouldn't exist.



I most assuredly do not. Science does not require faith, for it has evidence.



Jesus Christ, is that the best argument you've got?

Scientific evidence is obtained through rigorous experiment and a stringent peer-review process. Hypotheses are tested and re-tested, refined and revised, before they are accepted as scientific theories. When new evidence comes to light that casts doubt upon a particular theory, scientists are willing to consider changing the theory if that evidence is proved to be reliable. Contrast this to your 'sensual responses to God'. You have decided [iwithout evidence[/i that God exists. You therefore view and interpret everything through this particular lens. No amount of evidence will ever persuade you that God does not exist.



It suited those who were in positions of authority at the time. That's an over simplification, but it's nearer the truth than 'the explosion of the early church proves Jesus'/God's existence'.



We have no proof that Jesus even existed, but if he did, I refer you back to my previous answer about the mental patients. People believe all manner of crazy sh*t.



It's a bloody story. We have no proof that Jesus existed, much less that he died, was placed in a tomb and then came back to life.



Yes, it is. There is not a single recognised scientist alive who doesn't accept the theory of evolution. It is fact.



I don't have to be millions of years old. Are the Police present at every murder? Or do they collect evidence in order to build up a picture of what happened? There is massive, overwhelming evidence to support evolution. You would have to be a total idiot to doubt it.



Gotcha. So he could create light without a light source, but he decided that the Sun, Moon and stars would look a lot prettier than plain old boring 'light' and 'dark'.

Just think about what you're posting - just a little bit.

Speak for yourself. I'm a good person. I don't go out of my way to hurt others - sometimes I'll even go out of my way to help them. I don't cheat on my wife and I'm a good father to our son. I'm (usually) honest, I don't murder or rape, and I pay my taxes. I'm not perfect - none of us are - but I certainly don't deserve Hell. Which is fortunate, because I won't be going there.

you are a first grade, bona-fide, nut job, someone in your family should have you sectioned for their own good, the princess didn't really sleep badly because of a pea, snow white didn't live with a bunch of vertically challenged miners and bo peep actually knew where all of her sheep where.

bat%4it lunacy, nothing more

and if I am wrong, I hope the hate-fuled vengeful "god" of yours strikes me down with a bolt of lightening.

Thanks for that.
But none of your ad hominem diatribe disproves or detracts from what he said, does it?

Your god created us all, gave us the power of reason but no evidence of his existence and, despite that, expects us to realise he does exist and, if we fail to recognise that, he will punish us.
He is omniscient, so he already knows what we will do but waits for us to do it before passing judgement on us.
He punished himself (in the form of his son) to free us from the inbuilt sinfulness that he gave us.
He is a gentle, loving being who will punish us dreadfully if we don't follow the rules that he didn't tell us about.

Is that a fair summary?

Not very good at science, are you?

Talking to kirkstaller always reminds me of that episode of Family Guy where Meg finds religion. Towards the end of the episode Meg and Brian are at a book burning and someone says, "We must burn all the books that are harmful to Christianity."

First on the fire is 'On The Origin Of Species', second is 'A Brief History Of Time', third is 'Logic For First-Graders'.