Why do people believe you need evidence to disprove a god?

[QUOTE="gotdangit"]Some people just think there is something else out there, and that is God.Zeviander

The flying speghetti monster is clearly fake, since it doesnt have the merits of having something to believe in. And the other examples you mentioned are proven myths that have passed away. The God spoke in the Bible is eternal, his word has been written over the span of thousands of years. Not 20 years, or about some epics that have nothing to do with real life, or a couple of opprotunists that made something up and then told people about it. The Bible is organized and has a foundation to it. That is why people believe in Christ and not other religions.

It's only reasonable to deduce that if one believes that evidence must be presented to prove the existence of a God, then they must also need evidence to prove one does not exist. Also, define "evidence", what some believe is not evidence other believe is evidence. So who is the judge? arcangelgold

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]You are assuming there is one vision of god for everyone who believes in concept.Zeviander

Well technically they don't choose it. As you point out. I probably wouldn't disagree.

Although there are quite a lot of religious conversions in history and today i would imagine.

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="gotdangit"]Some people just think there is something else out there, and that is God.champion837

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="gotdangit"]Some people just think there is something else out there, and that is God.champion837

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Why "God" and not an invisible pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster? They were told by their parents and authority figures about God and really haven't made a conclusion on their own. Why God of the Bible and not Marduk, Odin, Izanagi, Ishtar, Quetzalcoatl or Re? Again, because they were told the answer before they could determine it themselves. You say people have a "reason" but, and I hate to be insensitive to peoples feelings, that reason is not justified nor is it really all that good. Very few people make their own conclusions about religion and God. Most probably have their conclusions set for them before the age of 5.SuperKaio-ken

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Why "God" and not an invisible pink unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster? They were told by their parents and authority figures about God and really haven't made a conclusion on their own. Why God of the Bible and not Marduk, Odin, Izanagi, Ishtar, Quetzalcoatl or Re? Again, because they were told the answer before they could determine it themselves. You say people have a "reason" but, and I hate to be insensitive to peoples feelings, that reason is not justified nor is it really all that good. Very few people make their own conclusions about religion and God. Most probably have their conclusions set for them before the age of 5.tenaka2

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

Youre looping religions together. I am aware of hinduism. Hinduism is a religion that began fictional accounts around the sixth century BC. And before that, hinduism really wasnt something to believe in, but more of a philosophy of life.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] The flying speghetti monster didnt do anything for anyone, nevermind the fact that it isnt a religion. And the other examples you mentioned are proven myths that have passed away. The God spoke in the Bible is eternal, his word has been written over the span of thousands of years. Not 20 years, or about some epics that have nothing to do with real life, or a couple of opprotunists that made something up and then told people about it. The Bible actually is organized and a foundation to it. That is why people believe in Christ and not other religions.champion837

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

SuperKaio-ken

Its accounts are much more recent (dont tell me about older religions than Hinduism, since they have problems as well). And the fact that what proceeded it in its own religion was never originally about accounts. How can you have a religion that everyone knows was for one thing (philosophy), and then somehow be changed for something else. That is a clear trend of something that isnt true.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] The flying speghetti monster didnt do anything for anyone, nevermind the fact that it isnt a religion. And the other examples you mentioned are proven myths that have passed away. The God spoke in the Bible is eternal, his word has been written over the span of thousands of years. Not 20 years, or about some epics that have nothing to do with real life, or a couple of opprotunists that made something up and then told people about it. The Bible actually is organized and a foundation to it. That is why people believe in Christ and not other religions.champion837

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

Youre looping religions together. I am aware of hinduism. Hinduism is a religion that began fictional accounts around the sixth century BC. And before that, hinduism really wasnt something to believe in, but more of a philosophy of life.

YOu sure?

Hinduismis the oldest known spiritual tradition in the world and there is evidence that it flourished long before recorded history in ancient India.

The ancient Vedic civilization practiced Hinduism in the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago and it was already then an old established tradition.

There is plenty of Evidence that its origin goes back into pre-historic times.



Hinduism was developed 6,000 years ago but can be traced back to 5500-2600 BCE.

Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_Hinduism#ixzz21p9D2V4D

The flying speghetti monster is clearly fake, since it doesnt have the merits of having something to believe in.champion837

The ancient Vedic civilization practiced Hinduism in the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago and it was already then an old established tradition.tenaka2

[QUOTE="champion837"]The flying speghetti monster is clearly fake, since it doesnt have the merits of having something to believe in.Zeviander

People dont summarize human beings with a couple of sentences and then draw awful conclusions from them, so I dont think we should summarize God up like that as well. Mention Jesus, mention preparing a way for those who are in need, mention the countless texts about love, mention what he says about unity. If you want to do a summary of him, then at least mention things that cover the majority of the Bible.

"Obama is a person who only cares about the 1% since he really cares about their vote." No if we dont let this person, who is a man, not be mischaracterized, then what should be done for God?

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]The ancient Vedic civilization practiced Hinduism in the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago and it was already then an old established tradition.Zeviander

[QUOTE="champion837"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You know that the hinduism religion is at least twice as old as christianity?

Its at least 4000 years old, if age makes a religion true, why are you not a Hundu?

tenaka2

Youre looping religions together. I am aware of hinduism. Hinduism is a religion that began fictional accounts around the sixth century BC. And before that, hinduism really wasnt something to believe in, but more of a philosophy of life.

YOu sure?

Hinduismis the oldest known spiritual tradition in the world and there is evidence that it flourished long before recorded history in ancient India.

The ancient Vedic civilization practiced Hinduism in the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago and it was already then an old established tradition.

There is plenty of Evidence that its origin goes back into pre-historic times.



Hinduism was developed 6,000 years ago but can be traced back to 5500-2600 BCE.

Read more:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_Hinduism#ixzz21p9D2V4D

[QUOTE="Zeviander"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]The ancient Vedic civilization practiced Hinduism in the Indus Valley over 6,000 years ago and it was already then an old established tradition.champion837

Please provide a link (hopefully not from answers in genesis) to back up this assertion please.

It's a failure of logical reasoning. The failure to disprove something's existence does not mean that you have proven it.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"] Firstly, I'm not trying to "Disprove gods" existence, I just see no compelling reason to believe in one when there is absolutely not one spec of evidence to support the claim of one. I tend to hold the belief that believing in something based off of nothing isn't the smartest thing to do. Now of course you'll have the opposing argument, such as"God is not a matter of science it is a matter of faith" but do you even understand what faith is? It is believing in something without proof, without evidence, and without good reason.

Now you might be willing to do that, but I am not nor will I ever be, because not only do I think it is irrational to do so, I hold that belief it is absolutely absurd to do so. Just because you WISH and WANT something to be true, doesn't mean it is true, nor does it give you a good reason to believe in it. Because you have no reason to believe in something, there is no reason why you should believe, it really is that simple. The point of this topic wasn't to DISPROVE god, the point was that because of there being no reason to believe in god (because it is a claim that is not supported with any sort of revidence) it can be dismissed equally without it.

This is why it is not up to science or anybody to disprove god in the first place, it is up to the person making the claim.

maheo30

If you're not trying to disprove God's existence, then why did you make this thread? If you think belief in God is so stupid, then why are you concerned with it? Why not just let us foolish people of faith be? As for evidence, the evidence for God is not empirical but spiritual; it's something that people of faith feel in their being. It's not something that can be proven or disproven by physical observations. As I said, it's a matter of faith.

26 ForYOUbehold his calling ofYOU, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many of noble birth;

27but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame;

28 and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are,

29in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God.

30But it is due to him thatYOUare in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom;

31that it may be just as it is written: He that boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.1 Corinthians 1

I'm going to have disagree with your definition of faith as it is certainly not biblical. The Christian definition of faith is not some blind leap. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15,

Now I would remind you, brothers,of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Christianity is based on historical fact. God really did enter time in the person of the Son. He lived for 33-34 years. He died. He rose again. The writers themselves claim that if what they believe didn't happen they are fools. Their belief is clearly not some blind leap off a cliff.

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]You are assuming there is one vision of god for everyone who believes in concept.Zeviander

You make way too many assumptions. Why can't God still be a flying invisible unicorn monster, we don't know what God looks like, no one does. The whole White guy with a beard is just like a place holder really, do you really think everyone assumes he's white?

And a lot of people convert to Christianity for some reason or another, not just because they were raised that way. I know a lot of Christians that came to Jesus because their life was so bad that they turned to Jesus and God, and Christianity, and to them, it's the only religion that makes sense. I'm not saying christianity is the "right" religion, but it's just the one so far that makes the most sense.

And I know a lot of things about christianity don't make sense, but you have to make sense of things, and I have my own view on things. I don't know where you get all these ideas about religion and how people got to where they were, but you can't just assume because of your own personal interactions, how did you even come to that conclusion that only a small amount of people found Christianity without being taught from the age of 5.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="Zeviander"] Let's also not forget that the Aryan people of the Asian Steppe who invaded/settled in the Indus Valley region brought a large portion of their beliefs with them (including the Vedas), which could have been around for several thousand years before the Indus Valley region flourished at all. The cult of Rudra is an insanely old tradition that has continued almost uninterrupted for at least 5000 years. If age makes a religion more right, then Hinduism has it on f*cking lockdown.tenaka2

Please provide a link (hopefully not from answers in genesis) to back up this assertion please.

Starting off with the philosophical works, from the main page of the Hindu Vedas on wikipedia, and many other sources, they were first written down in 1500 BC and 800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

Now what I was talking about, sometime afterwards, were written by numerous people without accord, like epics of greek mythology. You can find articles about this all over the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

And then another different system (of monotheism) occured around 900AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

I dont need to make this stuff up if thats what you think I am doing.

Starting off with the philosophical works, from the main page of the Hindu Vedas on wikipedia, and many other sources, they were first written down in 1500 BC and 800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

Now what I was talking about, sometime afterwards, were written by numerous people without accord, like epics of greek mythology. You can find articles about this all over the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

And then another different system (of monotheism) occured around 900AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

I dont need to make this stuff up if thats what you think I am doing.

champion837

There is evidence of religious culture before writing though. How does dating the many pre-Christian religions help to make Christianity the best bet for your religious truth?

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

BluRayHiDef

[QUOTE="champion837"]

Starting off with the philosophical works, from the main page of the Hindu Vedas on wikipedia, and many other sources, they were first written down in 1500 BC and 800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

Now what I was talking about, sometime afterwards, were written by numerous people without accord, like epics of greek mythology. You can find articles about this all over the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

And then another different system (of monotheism) occured around 900AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

I dont need to make this stuff up if thats what you think I am doing.

RationalAtheist

There is evidence of religious culture before writing though. How does dating the many pre-Christian religions help to make Christianity the best bet for your religious truth?

So deos this mean that champion believes christianity only started after the last edit of the bible? Say the King James edition from around 1600AD?

[QUOTE="champion837"]

Starting off with the philosophical works, from the main page of the Hindu Vedas on wikipedia, and many other sources, they were first written down in 1500 BC and 800 BC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas

Now what I was talking about, sometime afterwards, were written by numerous people without accord, like epics of greek mythology. You can find articles about this all over the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

And then another different system (of monotheism) occured around 900AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Hinduism

I dont need to make this stuff up if thats what you think I am doing.

RationalAtheist

There is evidence of religious culture before writing though. How does dating the many pre-Christian religions help to make Christianity the best bet for your religious truth?

I already said that there are a lot more reasons than that. I was only answering his question of when hindu vedas were written.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

champion837

The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, non-biblical, and subsequently heretical. It was not something believed nor taught by Jesus or his Apostles. It is a doctrine that was developed in the centuries after Christ's ascension to the Father (his superior) and finally made official in the fourth centurty. This is a historical fact. Read the article in the link I posted. It explains the historical origin of the Trinity and - most importantly - it proves that it is not scriptural by citing the Bible.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

BluRayHiDef

The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, non-biblical, and subsequently heretical. It was not something believed nor taught by Jesus or his Apostles. It is a doctrine that was developed in the centuries after Christ's ascension to the Father (his superior) and finally made official in the fourth centurty. This is a historical fact. Read the article in the link I posted. It explains the historical origin of the Trinity and - most importantly - it proves that it is not scriptural by citing the Bible.

In John Jesus says "I and the Father are one". He said it himself.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit are one.champion837

The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, non-biblical, and subsequently heretical. It was not something believed nor taught by Jesus or his Apostles. It is a doctrine that was developed in the centuries after Christ's ascension to the Father (his superior) and finally made official in the fourth centurty. This is a historical fact. Read the article in the link I posted. It explains the historical origin of the Trinity and - most importantly - it proves that it is not scriptural by citing the Bible.

Not to defend bluray but the catholic church did take the trinity concept from paganism in an attempt to appease the more pagan minded members in an attempt to unify the church.

What really annoys me about a lot of Atheists is how many somehow think that Science is theres, if one wants to face the facts, most science was developed by people who believed in God. This attitude that anyone who believes in God is stupid is pretty pathetic, the fact is that there is definitely a case for intelligent design. I'm an Engineer and I definitely believe in intelligent design as did a lot of great historical scientists.

For instance, my field is mathematics. In maths, everything is a multiple of 1, you cannot get something from nothing. Try dividing by zero you'll see it can't be done. Everything originates from 1. Why can't that be extrapolated to the universe then? The question then must be posed, where did God come from? Well, God theologically isn't bound by the finite universe as he transcends space and time, we are space time creatures so our understanding will always be limited.

To deny intelligent design and say everything is just random coincidence, to me is absurd.

Asim90

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, non-biblical, and subsequently heretical. It was not something believed nor taught by Jesus or his Apostles. It is a doctrine that was developed in the centuries after Christ's ascension to the Father (his superior) and finally made official in the fourth centurty. This is a historical fact. Read the article in the link I posted. It explains the historical origin of the Trinity and - most importantly - it proves that it is not scriptural by citing the Bible.

tenaka2

Not to defend bluray but the catholic church did take the trinity concept from paganism in an attempt to appease the more pagan minded members in an attempt to unify the church.

I told you what Jesus said.

I already said that there are a lot more reasons than that. I was only answering his question of when hindu vedas were written.

champion837

I notice you originally said the 600 BC, then 700 or 800 BC, then revised this to 1500 BC, after looking at Wiki. Doesn't that change date slippage alter your argument at all? It's funny that you take the same view of that religion as I do of your one.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] In John Jesus says "I and the Father are one". This isnt something that is made up.champion837

Not to defend bluray but the catholic church did take the trinity concept from paganism in an attempt to appease the more pagan minded members in an attempt to unify the church.

As you can see? You presented nothing, you cannot falsify something by saying 'a false one'

[QUOTE="champion837"]

I already said that there are a lot more reasons than that. I was only answering his question of when hindu vedas were written.

RationalAtheist

I notice you originally said the 600 BC, then 700 or 800 BC, then revised this to 1500 BC, after looking at Wiki. Doesn't that change date slippage alter your argument at all? It's funny that you take the same view of that religion as I do of your one.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="champion837"]

I already said that there are a lot more reasons than that. I was only answering his question of when hindu vedas were written.

champion837

I notice you originally said the 600 BC, then 700 or 800 BC, then revised this to 1500 BC, after looking at Wiki. Doesn't that change date slippage alter your argument at all? It's funny that you take the same view of that religion as I do of your one.

The religion was practiced long before that, by your own daft arguments christianity is only as old as the last revision of the bible, this would not help you.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Not to defend bluray but the catholic church did take the trinity concept from paganism in an attempt to appease the more pagan minded members in an attempt to unify the church.

tenaka2

As you can see? You presented nothing, you cannot falsify something by saying 'a false one'

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit are one.champion837

The doctrine of the Trinity is illogical, non-biblical, and subsequently heretical. It was not something believed nor taught by Jesus or his Apostles. It is a doctrine that was developed in the centuries after Christ's ascension to the Father (his superior) and finally made official in the fourth centurty. This is a historical fact. Read the article in the link I posted. It explains the historical origin of the Trinity and - most importantly - it proves that it is not scriptural by citing the Bible.

Before we start this, keep the following in mind: As believers in the Bible, we must believe that it never contradicts itself. Hence, a doctrine/ conclusion must be in agreement with the ENTIRE Bible. Hence, I will show you a passage which will explain what Jesus meant when he said "I and the Father are one". In John, when Jesus is praying to the Father, he said the following:

New International Version

20My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,21that all of them may be one,Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.22I have given them the glory that you gave me,that they may be one as we are one23I in them and you in meso that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent meand have loved themeven as you have loved me.

John 17

New King James Version

I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will[e]believe in Me through their word;21that they all may be one, as You, Father,arein Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent e.22And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one:23I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.John 17

Notice that in his prayer to the Father, Jesus asks that his diciples be one just as he and the Father are one. Now, if Jesus meant that he and the Father are one and the same God when he said "I and the Father are one", then in this prayer he was asking the Father to make his diciples into one entity/ being just as he and the Father would be (if your interpretation was correct). However, that obviously makes no sense. Obviously Jesus is asking that his diciples be in agreement/ in harmony/ one in purpose, etc. Hence, this is what he meant when he said "I and the Father are one"; he meant that he and the Father are one in purpose, that they're in agreement, that they're in harmony, etc. He did not mean that he and the Father are one being/ entity/ person/ God. That is ludacris. God is one, not three. Never has been, never will be. Furthermore, God is immortal; he cannot die, yet Jesus was dead for three days.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] I told you what Jesus said. What you said was a rumor, and as you can see, a false one at that.champion837

As you can see? You presented nothing, you cannot falsify something by saying 'a false one'

No you didn't you told me what some guy said jesus said years and years after jesus's death, at very best 3rd hand accounts if not more.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

champion837

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I notice you originally said the 600 BC, then 700 or 800 BC, then revised this to 1500 BC, after looking at Wiki. Doesn't that change date slippage alter your argument at all? It's funny that you take the same view of that religion as I do of your one.

tenaka2

The religion was practiced long before that, by your own daft arguments christianity is only as old as the last revision of the bible, this would not help you.

The question is about the historical documents, something that I know atheists talk about (too much if you ask me). This isnt only about me and how I come to conclusions. So I dont know what you mean by "my own daft arguments". What was the point of that, to try and trip me up on what I think? What about the argument at hand, that I have backed up? I guess I am wrong to you no matter what I do.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] 1500BC was about the first writing of the Hindu religion, not about what I was talking about. What I quoted for my point was actually written in 400BC.champion837

The religion was practiced long before that, by your own daft arguments christianity is only as old as the last revision of the bible, this would not help you.

But don't you see the trinity concept was introduced hundereds of years after the death of christ, trying to make hinduism a younger religion based upon documents does nothign for your own version of religion.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

Yes, but there is no evidence for their claims. Hence to believe their claims requires faith. For those who did not exist when Jesus was on Earth and did not see him in person, belief in him is an act of faith. This is what I meant. Furthermore, Jesus is not God; he is God's unique, only-begotten Son. Read this.

SuperKaio-ken

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Jesus is God. The Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit are one.champion837

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

The religion was practiced long before that, by your own daft arguments christianity is only as old as the last revision of the bible, this would not help you.

tenaka2

But don't you see the trinity concept was introduced hundereds of years after the death of christ, trying to make hinduism a younger religion based upon documents does nothign for your own version of religion.

[QUOTE="champion837"][QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"] Until you can provide evidence your claim means absouletly nothing. I hope you know that

SuperKaio-ken

If someone wanted to say that, then they would need prophecies about them, people to prepare their way, and many, many texts that complimented each other throughout thousands of years that led to that person's arrival, and it still wouldnt be as much as what Jesus had.

If someone wanted to say that, then they would need prophecies about them, people to prepare your way, and many, many texts that complimented each other throughout thousands of years that led to that person's arrival for it to be the same.champion837

This idea of thousands of years keeps cropping up, although you discount other religions with as much if not more quantity and longevity of documentation to support them.

We can also see that there is dispute over interpretations of the bible between Christians (regarding the Trinity, amonst other things). This shows me that the texts don't necessarily compliment each other like you say they do, if they create disagreements between people interpreting the same book in different ways.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] The question is about the historical documents, something that I know atheists talk about (too much if you ask me). It isnt about what I think. So I dont know what you mean by my own arguments. What was the point of that, to trip me up on what I think? What about the argument at hand, that I have backed up? I guess I am wrong no matter what I do then to you.champion837

But don't you see the trinity concept was introduced hundereds of years after the death of christ, trying to make hinduism a younger religion based upon documents does nothign for your own version of religion.

You used wiki as a source and you also chose to determine exactly when a religion begins, you cannot determine the age of hinduism based upon what documents where written at what time.

Christianity started as a jewish cult and the bible wasn't written when christ was alive but many many years later, this doesnt mean that christianity started when the book was written, same applies for hinduism.

Not that it matters, hinduism predates christianity by many hundreds if not thousands of years.

It's just a defensive reaction to a point of view that obviously questions the existence of the almighty male figure they've allowed themselves to be enamoured to believe in.

[QUOTE="SuperKaio-ken"]

[QUOTE="champion837"] Jesus said it himself. In John, Jesus said "I and the Father are one".champion837