RE: The debate is over
June 30, 2012 at 8:32 am
(This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 8:35 am by Skepsis.)
(June 30, 2012 at 8:19 am)Micah Wrote: I don't sit around and think about what all is possible.
Context doesn't matter. Your statement was general.
(June 30, 2012 at 8:19 am)Micah Wrote: If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god.Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god).I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence.
I don't know if you meant to say it, but you did. Don't call me crazy if I saw this and decided to call you out on it.
If you think Mark is reliable, which I think it is fair to conclude that you do, then by your own admission you think Jesus is god.
I'll make this very, very clear to you: I understand the trinity. I understand the idea is that is being presented. I simply think it is stupid nonsense that doesn't deserve any serious scrutiny. After all, if you can't prove that a God exists, why even take into consideration how this God interacts with the world or his relations to others things or concepts? It seems to be a mental jerkfest, much like if I were to suggest the correlation between proven phenomena and the fairy queen.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
