atheist, agnostic or religious?

i am apatheist and i think most people are that i know. 

seriously, i couldn't care less about religion. do i think there is a God? i dunno...moving on.  

Used to be jewish but now I'm a narcisist.

HardcoreBunni

LOL it's all about loving yourself! 

Other; believe in multiple religions. Vandalvideo

I like the hedge betting! covers all bases i guess

Apologies to everyone who has said that the categories need to be better defined. Those whom have a different belief system than that in the pol have stated what they are and i think that's enough. I'm not going to change it now as the thread is to long and to the people that have voted within the category's it would be unfair to change them now. I think that everyone gets the idea of the pole well enough: non believer, fence sitter and believer!duncancameron23

What about being above all that?

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"]Apologies to everyone who has said that the categories need to be better defined. Those whom have a different belief system than that in the pol have stated what they are and i think that's enough. I'm not going to change it now as the thread is to long and to the people that have voted within the category's it would be unfair to change them now. I think that everyone gets the idea of the pole well enough: non believer, fence sitter and believer!Silverbond

What about being above all that?

What's above all that? 

Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.Vilot_Hero

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.AirGuitarist87

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Other than the bible?

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.AirGuitarist87

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Weak atheist. Or atheist agnostic. Or agnostic. Whatever you want to call it.Zenkuso

I wouldn't actually call you a agnostic funky ;)

Would be quite heavy atheist agnostic if anything.

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.AirGuitarist87

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.Funky_Llama

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Can you point me in the directon of it? id like to have a look at that. Cheers

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.jointed

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

Earliest workings I can find are of Josephus, who was around 1 year after Jesus died. There's also a load of stuff here about his encounters with various other religious figures, including John the Baptist and his arrest and trial. I know there's evidence from sources besides the bible, as I had to read about them in RE from things like letters by Roman soldiers, but pin pointing exact evidence is difficult as Googling "Jesus" and anything else just brings up loads of bias Christian sites.

I'm not Christian, though, so it doesn't bother me that much. :lol: In my opinion, if he didn't exist that just makes Christianity a bigger phenomenon then it already is.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

 

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

duncancameron23

Can you point me in the directon of it? id like to have a look at that. Cheers

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

 

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

AirGuitarist87

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

Earliest workings I can find are of Josephus, who was around 1 year after Jesus died. There's also a load of stuff here about his encounters with various other religious figures, including John the Baptist and his arrest and trial. I know there's evidence from sources besides the bible, as I had to read about them in RE from things like letters by Roman soldiers, but pin pointing exact evidence is difficult as Googling "Jesus" and anything else just brings up loads of bias Christian sites.

I'm not Christian, though, so it doesn't bother me that much. :lol: In my opinion, if he didn't exist that just makes Christianity a bigger phenomenon then it already is.

[QUOTE="duncancameron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yup. There's some good historical evidence that Jesus existed, which we have no reason to doubt.Funky_Llama

Can you point me in the directon of it? id like to have a look at that. Cheers

Sketchy at best huh, not sure i fully trust Wiki but it's a good starting point.

Given how those lovely *cough* religion threads go, I figured this is how the demo's lined up.

Earliest workings I can find are of Josephus, who was around 1 year after Jesus died. There's also a load of stuff here about his encounters with various other religious figures, including John the Baptist and his arrest and trial. I know there's evidence from sources besides the bible, as I had to read about them in RE from things like letters by Roman soldiers, but pin pointing exact evidence is difficult as Googling "Jesus" and anything else just brings up loads of bias Christian sites.

I'm not Christian, though, so it doesn't bother me that much. :lol: In my opinion, if he didn't exist that just makes Christianity a bigger phenomenon then it already is.

AirGuitarist87

He was born 1 year after the death of Jesus. He didn't even live at the same time as him. And the Bible should never be taken as concrete evidence when it comes to this.

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

[QUOTE="Vilot_Hero"]Atheist. There is no scientific proof that god or jesus existed/exist.jointed

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

Since when is that a criteria for determining whether or not somebody existed? Are we not allowed to write about Napoleon, since we weren't around when he was?

By that standard, we have no reason to believe Alexander the Great or Socrates existed.

The earliest reference to Christ that we have is this bowl.

The earliest reference from a historian is Josephus, at about 60 years after Christ died (meaning a single generation had passed, making Josephus reliable and contemporary. It would be like writing about your grandfather.).

Aside from those two, there have been several other references. The historical community widely accepts that Jesus did exist; denying it with Christ-myth bullcrap is the historical equivalent to Young Earth Creationism.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

 

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Theokhoth

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

Since when is that a criteria for determining whether or not somebody existed? Are we not allowed to write about Napoleon, since we weren't around when he was?

By that standard, we have no reason to believe Alexander the Great or Socrates existed.

The earliest reference to Christ that we have is this bowl.

The earliest reference from a historian is Josephus, at about 60 years after Christ died (meaning a single generation had passed, making Josephus reliable and contemporary. It would be like writing about your grandfather.).

Aside from those two, there have been several other references. The historical community widely accepts that Jesus did exist; denying it with Christ-myth bullcrap is the historical equivalent to Young Earth Creationism.

He was born 1 year after the death of Jesus. He didn't even live at the same time as him. And the Bible should never be taken as concrete evidence when it comes to this.

jointed

Why not? The Gospels are real, made by real people, who mention other real people and real places. Dismissing the Bible because it's the Bible is circular reasoning.

Nothing is that bad. :oFunky_Llama

Not even this?:o

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oTheokhoth

Not even this?:o

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oTheokhoth

Not even this?:o

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oJandurin

Not even this?:o

The truth.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]

 

Jesus did exist. :| There's plenty of evidence.

Theokhoth

Go ahead and show us then.

Oh, and before you post some statements from ancient historians, make sure they're from around the time Jesus actually lived.

Since when is that a criteria for determining whether or not somebody existed? Are we not allowed to write about Napoleon, since we weren't around when he was?

By that standard, we have no reason to believe Alexander the Great or Socrates existed.

The earliest reference to Christ that we have is this bowl.

The earliest reference from a historian is Josephus, at about 60 years after Christ died (meaning a single generation had passed, making Josephus reliable and contemporary. It would be like writing about your grandfather.).

Aside from those two, there have been several other references. The historical community widely accepts that Jesus did exist; denying it with Christ-myth bullcrap is the historical equivalent to Young Earth Creationism.

Faulty logic right there. You base your knowledge of Napoleon on historical accounts from people who was actually there, THEN you write about him.  

There's first hand historical evidence of Alexander the Great's existance, so you fail there too. And Socrates' existance is by no means absolute.

No, wrong. It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who allegedly could lift houses...you've never actually met him, but what the heck. If you've ever attended a basic history **** you'd know that historians consider such logic faulty beyond belief. 

The truth.

Theokhoth

Faulty logic right there. You base your knowledge of Napoleon on historical accounts from people who was actually there, THEN you write about him.  

There's first hand historical evidence of Alexander the Great's existance, so you fail there too. And Socrates' existance is by no means absolute.

No, wrong. It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who allegedly could lift houses...you've never actually met him, but what the heck. If you've ever attended a basic history **** you'd know that historians consider such logic faulty beyond belief. 

jointed

You don't get it, do you? First-hand eyewitness testimony is not a valid criteria for historiography. You're implementing your own standards into a system that rejects it!:lol: And Alexander the Great does not have any first-hand evidence, and Socrates' existence is barley disputed.

No, actually, Josephus was anti-Christian and didn't believe Jesus could do anything miraculous.:lol:  It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who everybody knows and who changed his community. If YOU had taken a basic history cIass then you would know that your methods of "research" are pathetic and regarded as ineffective. You would also know that it is widely accepted in the historical community that Christ existed. There is no denying that.

But hey, what do a bunch of historians know compared to you?:lol:

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oTheokhoth

Not even this?:o

WTF?! :o Wow. Where do people come up with this stuff?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oNew2theGame

Not even this?:o

WTF?! :o Wow. Where do people come up with this stuff?

No, the real question is how does it stay supressed for so long?

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Faulty logic right there. You base your knowledge of Napoleon on historical accounts from people who was actually there, THEN you write about him.  

There's first hand historical evidence of Alexander the Great's existance, so you fail there too. And Socrates' existance is by no means absolute.

No, wrong. It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who allegedly could lift houses...you've never actually met him, but what the heck. If you've ever attended a basic history **** you'd know that historians consider such logic faulty beyond belief. 

Theokhoth

You don't get it, do you? First-hand eyewitness testimony is not a valid criteria for historiography. You're implementing your own standards into a system that rejects it!:lol: And Alexander the Great does not have any first-hand evidence, and Socrates' existence is barley disputed.

No, actually, Josephus was anti-Christian and didn't believe Jesus could do anything miraculous.:lol:  It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who everybody knows and who changed his community. If YOU had taken a basic history cIass then you would know that your methods of "research" are pathetic and regarded as ineffective. You would also know that it is widely accepted in the historical community that Christ existed. There is no denying that.

But hey, what do a bunch of historians know compared to you?:lol:

Oh, did I hit a nerve :lol:

There's clear evidence of Alexander's existence. Gold coins, historical accounts, battle descrpitions...etc. And again, Socrates' existence is by NO MEANS absolute, Plato's existence is though.

You can whine all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that there's no concrete evidence of Jesus' existence. There is of Alexander (or at least a person who did the things he allegedly did) and Napoleon (his sarcophagus, clothes etc.). You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about, and make historical criteria up as you go. It's a part of basic history to be critical towards your sources...everyone knows that.

I suggest you take a chill pill :) 

Faulty logic right there. You base your knowledge of Napoleon on historical accounts from people who was actually there, THEN you write about him.

There's first hand historical evidence of Alexander the Great's existance, so you fail there too. And Socrates' existance is by no means absolute.

No, wrong. It would be like writing about your grandfather's friend Tom who allegedly could lift houses...you've never actually met him, but what the heck. If you've ever attended a basic history **** you'd know that historians consider such logic faulty beyond belief.

Sounds to me like even if there was the exact same evidence that Napoleon and Jesus both existed, you would find a reason for the proof of Jesus' existance to be questionable. Most likely because that, obviously, falls under the category of "religious". I completely agree with theokoth....we are taught the existance, purpose, and lives of many people in history; and are expected to believe that these teachings are true. Why should it be any different for Jesus than it is with Hitler Because there weren't cameras or Video cameras back then to shove in our faces to MAKE us believe?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Nothing is that bad. :oTheokhoth

Not even this?:o

lol wow. This doesn't have anything to do with that lizard fetish you have right?

Oh, did I hit a nerve :lol:

There's clear evidence of Alexander's existence. Gold coins, historical accounts, battle descrpitions...etc.jointed

Like the cup Theokhoth showed you. If you dismiss that evidence, you dismiss Alexander's existence too.

There is of Alexander (or at least a person who did the things he allegedly did)

jointed

Like Jesus?

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Oh, did I hit a nerve :lol:

There's clear evidence of Alexander's existence. Gold coins, historical accounts, battle descrpitions...etc.AirGuitarist87

Like the cup Theokhoth showed you. If you dismiss that evidence, you dismiss Alexander's existence too.

There is of Alexander (or at least a person who did the things he allegedly did)

jointed

Like Jesus?

Ehm, no?

I suggest you read the article before you comment on the cup. It was created in the late 1rst century-early 2nd.

If you show me a historical account that was written whilst the person we're talking about (Jesus) was alive, then I'll accept Jesus' existance as highly possible. But you've got nothing to argue with at the moment. 

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Ehm, no?

I suggest you read the article before you comment on the cup. It was created in the late 1rst century-early 2nd.

If you show me a historical account that was written whilst the person we're talking about (Jesus) was alive, then I'll accept Jesus' existance as highly possible. But you've got nothing to argue with at the moment. 

AirGuitarist87

Theokhoth has already explained to you why that's a stupid criteria for evidence. And as I've already said, there're letters written by Roman soldiers about Jesus floating around somewhere. They're just difficult to find.

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways? 

[QUOTE="jointed"]

Ehm, no?

I suggest you read the article before you comment on the cup. It was created in the late 1rst century-early 2nd.

If you show me a historical account that was written whilst the person we're talking about (Jesus) was alive, then I'll accept Jesus' existance as highly possible. But you've got nothing to argue with at the moment.

AirGuitarist87

Theokhoth has already explained to you why that's a stupid criteria for evidence. And as I've already said, there're letters written by Roman soldiers about Jesus floating around somewhere. They're just difficult to find.

Something so hystorically valuable just went missing?

"Exaplined to you" Hah, as if I need an explanation.

I've already destroyed his silly anologies. You can't go by statements that was written almost 70 years AFTER the death of him, it's ridiculous. And NO, the same logic can not be applied to Alexander the Great since there's lots of writings about him from around the time he lived, and there's also a huge amount of evidence for his reign of power.

I fail to understand why you're trying to defend this logic so desperately, can't you see the error of your ways? 

jointed

I'm not sure why you're so determined to try and prove Jesus didn't exist, but oh well.

Firstly, saying you've won an argument doesn't make it so. Your anology about your granddad's friend Tom lifting houses - if your granddad did indeed had a friend called Tom, then there's no denying he existed. Historians aren't saying Jesus did half the stuff the Bible claims, but there is evidence he existed. As I've already said, pinpointing evidence is more hassle then it's worth - if you want to disbelieve Jesus never entered this world, fine by me.

And I'm hardly desperate. Like I said, I'm not even Christian. :lol: Finding evidence that says "this is proof Jesus existed" is difficult because most people believe it's not something worth arguing against, like trying to prove Lizard People not existing.