Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Because it enjoys the luxury of social acceptability and indoctrination, having become so widespread and insistently taught to children because in the beginning it had so much (violent, coercive) help in spreading and staying rooted. In short, the reason so many people believe today is because of an unbroken line of missionaries and crusades and demagogues enshrining the religion into the culture by any means necessary. The one thing you cannot say, with a view to history, is that the reason christianity is so widespread is because of Jesus. He had a lot of extremely underhanded help.

Wrong yet again, Esquilax...I guess being wrong all the time doesn't seem to bother you Paul was writing to the church in Corinth in the mid-50's AD...now Corinth is 3257 miles away from Jerusalem..so if within 25 years after an event (the Resurrection) in Jerusalem, Paul is already writing to a church 3257 miles away from where the event took place, that mean that Christianity had already spread quickly throughout the empire...and not only that, but shortly after Paul wrote to the church, it was the Christians that were getting persecuted, not unbelievers...and this was at least 10 centuries before the Crusades...so Christianity was already full blown by the time of the Crusades and all of the "indoctrination" that came with it. Third, you are committing the genetic fallacy, because how people CAME to believe in Christianity has nothing to do with whether or not the belief itself is true.

But that's a very different claim you made originally, that it's all because of Jesus. It's not; if it had just been Jesus I am sure your religion would have been snuffed out quite quickly. Not as if there weren't many more that suffered that fate, and they had no worse information than your god.

Christianity was already in full effect, buddy. If the Roman empire was a human body, Christianity would be equivalent to full blown aids

No, Vilenkin's theorem, as the theorem literally states as its chief conclusion, only demonstrates that universal inflation has a beginning. Because the theorem only discusses universal inflation, and not the beginnings of the universe.

Dude, inflation is a feature of an expanding universe. If inflation had a beginning, then so did the universe. Not to mention the fact that you are clearly misrepresenting the theorem.

So, are you lying, or not reading the things posted to you? Because, you know, I quoted the theorem paper verbatim, plus two of the authors saying the opposite of what you said, including in the resource you provided.

14th time. I have a video of Vilenkin presenting and explaining the theorem and its implications to an audience.

Oh good. Please do make your thread, because you have no clue what evolution is, and smacking you down again will be a pleasure.

Again?

Here's a list of transitional fossils for you. Educate yourself: these show the gradual progress of evolution from one species to another, as evolution actually describes. Please learn what you're talking about before speaking on this subject again, and leave your ludicrous creationist fantasies about what evolution is out of the conversation.

Give me all of that stuff in due time.

---

Wow, clever.

Yet they're related to wolves, which I'm sure, you will deny next. Without evidence of course.

Another thread...