Holy Fake

This just in...

Scientists used blood pattern analysis research techniques to study stains on the Shroud, concluding they are inconsistent with a single position.Forensic scientists have once again concluded that the Shroud of Turin, supposedly the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion, was artificially created.

Synthetic A Priori

I've noticed that most proof about god's existence rely solely on logical arguments. For me, that is not a very effective way of proving the existence of a "sentient being" (AKA God). R

As one Christian have said, "I want to clarify is that by God I mean the immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause or in simple words a SENTIENT BEING that caused the conception of the universe." (emphasis mine) 

Does giving me a logical argument about the principle of causality serve as evidence that this "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" exists? Even if I will accept (without admitting) the principle of causality, it will not established an "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being" as existing by fact. Even if I will add the word "Necessary" to  "sentient being," will it still not become a statement of fact. We will only have statements of logic about the "immaterial, timeless, uncaused-cause sentient being." And the reason? Dyan papasok ang synthetic description.

Invisible God?

Often, Christians have some funny ways to defend their "unseen" god. Some compare it to abstract ideas such as the mind, love, courage and worst, some equate their god to air. Maybe it's a kind of excuse - You can't see god because he's like air - PERIOD!

I find it hilarious!

Not a very "serious" argument.

Every time I post or encounter arguments about the historical Jesus, I get this reply.

"No serious historians reject the historicity of Jesus."

Really? So are you saying that those who reject it are not to be considered as "serious historians" huh? Looking at the argument, I can smell the foul stench of Ad hominem.

Was there a consensus that to be condered a "serious" historian, you should believed that Jesus was a real "historical person?"

So what measurement are we using to be considered as a "serious historians?" Is it an Apologetics-influenced scholarship, a "mainstream scholarship,” or the "what most scholars think?”

Have we forgotten the science philosopher Thomas Kuhn who said that by the formulation of new interpretive paradigms as by the accumulation of new data and discoveries is the reason why science progress? Can we not apply this in the paradigms of history, specially on biblical/religious claims?

When these so-called "serious historians" speak about Jesus, are they talking about the same Jesus that was born of a virgin, turned water into wine, heal the sick, produced fish and bread out of thin air, walked on water and resurrected after being dead for three days?

Now, suppose we asked, "Have you even read the mythicist's arguments?" Have you really made a serious thought about them?

I really don't expect to get any answers from these questions.

As the writer and historian David Fitgerald said, "Apologists love to parrot the old lie that "no serious historians reject the historicity of Christ," but fail to realized (or deliberately neglect to mention) the the "historical Jesus" the majority of historians do accept is at best no more than just another first-century wandering preacher and founder of a fringe cult that eventually became Christianity - in other words, a Jesus that completely debunks their own."

Demon Possession

According to an African Christian on the issue regarding atheism and demon possession:  ''Demons wouldn't attack their own. They know atheists are on their side."

Me: Really?

According to your own bible, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." - James 2:19

That means demons are theists.
Better start reading your own holy book.