Christians. Could you be wrong?

[C4RM5]

By saying I am skeptical, I mean I naturally question things.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as I know Christianity is the only religion to claim that God came to earth as a human.

Not even close, it's a very common theme. Some gods actually started out as men - not an incarnation removed or prohibited from expressing their divine nature. Related to this (and sometimes part and parcel with it)- and with an even larger cast of characters- is the notion of apotheosis. You're unlikely to find much of anything that is unique to christianity. Not really an issue, we seem to revel in telling the same tale countless ways.

It doesn't say in the Bible that aliens were made, therefore ot means aliens don't exist or they are just not mentioned in the creation story.

B-mine.

Yup, that's the long and short of it. The bible isn't exactly the best tool for determining what does and doesn't exist. I presume that you do not believe in dragons/sea serpents - and yet the bible not only claims that they exist - they are offered as a proof of gods existence and power (and even more specifically, our impotency relative to both dragons -and- god). After all, who but the lord could fashion Leviathan? Blake expressed an almost identical notion - but he had the sense to refer to a tiger in posing the question.

[Crossless2.0]

By saying I am skeptical, I mean I naturally question things.

Yes, well, some are better at questioning than others. As Simon Moon wrote, "Being skeptical is not appealing to an ancient book filled with magic, witches, dragons, gods sacrificing themselves to themselves, people living to 900 years old, a boat holding 2 or 7 of all the species on earth, men living in fish for 3 days, healing leprosy with bird blood, etc, etc."

From your posts, I gather that you quelled your "natural skepticism" regarding this nonsense because of your feelings. Need I point out that this is practically the precise opposite of questioning things? Again, what are your criteria for determining the truth of unusual or outrageous claims? Other peddlers of woo and religious bullshit also have strong feelings about their claims. What they lack is good evidence and a program for determining what constitutes good evidence. Your feelings aside, how would you rationally determine, for example, that the claims made about Jesus are true but the claims made about Apollonius of Tyana aren't?

[Simon Moon]

By saying I am skeptical, I mean I naturally question things.

Obviously you don't even do that.

If you did, it wouldn't have taken an atheist forum to tell you that the Gospels were written by unknown authors and were not first hand accounts.

If you questioned things, you would have already done that, and a lot more questioning about your own religion.

But, like most theists, you believe because you want to, for reasons other than skepticism.

[C4RM5]

By saying I am skeptical, I mean I naturally question things.

Yes, well, some are better at questioning than others. As Simon Moon wrote, "Being skeptical is not appealing to an ancient book filled with magic, witches, dragons, gods sacrificing themselves to themselves, people living to 900 years old, a boat holding 2 or 7 of all the species on earth, men living in fish for 3 days, healing leprosy with bird blood, etc, etc."

From your posts, I gather that you quelled your "natural skepticism" regarding this nonsense because of your feelings. Need I point out that this is practically the precise opposite of questioning things? Again, what are your criteria for determining the truth of unusual or outrageous claims? Other peddlers of woo and religious bullshit also have strong feelings about their claims. What they lack is good evidence and a program for determining what constitutes good evidence. Your feelings aside, how would you rationally determine, for example, that the claims made about Jesus are true but the claims made about Apollonius of Tyana aren't?

I believe the stories about Jesus are true because of evidence, contained in the Bible there is evidence for Jesus' resurection.

---

By saying I am skeptical, I mean I naturally question things.

Obviously you don't even do that.

If you did, it wouldn't have taken an atheist forum to tell you that the Gospels were written by unknown authors and were not first hand accounts.

If you questioned things, you would have already done that, and a lot more questioning about your own religion.

But, like most theists, you believe because you want to, for reasons other than skepticism.

I have questioned my own religion but I can not think of every question that exists.

[Simon Moon]

I believe the stories about Jesus are true because of evidence, contained in the Bible there is evidence for Jesus' resurection.

We've all been waiting for years for a Christian to present this alleged evidence.

What you got?

[Crossless2.0]

I believe the stories about Jesus are true because of evidence, contained in the Bible there is evidence for Jesus' resurection.

If nothing else, you have a bright future in stand up comedy. You think that anonymous claims made decades after the alleged fact (with not one shred of contemporaneous evidence to back them up) is evidence? Shit, my cat is more skeptical than you.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Yes, well, some are better at questioning than others. As Simon Moon wrote, "Being skeptical is not appealing to an ancient book filled with magic, witches, dragons, gods sacrificing themselves to themselves, people living to 900 years old, a boat holding 2 or 7 of all the species on earth, men living in fish for 3 days, healing leprosy with bird blood, etc, etc."

From your posts, I gather that you quelled your "natural skepticism" regarding this nonsense because of your feelings. Need I point out that this is practically the precise opposite of questioning things? Again, what are your criteria for determining the truth of unusual or outrageous claims? Other peddlers of woo and religious bullshit also have strong feelings about their claims. What they lack is good evidence and a program for determining what constitutes good evidence. Your feelings aside, how would you rationally determine, for example, that the claims made about Jesus are true but the claims made about Apollonius of Tyana aren't?

I believe the stories about Jesus are true because of evidence, contained in the Bible there is evidence for Jesus' resurection.

The bible is a coprehenisve list of claims, not evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe the stories about Jesus are true because of evidence, contained in the Bible there is evidence for Jesus' resurection.

-As there is evidence for the resurrection of Lucy Westenra contained in Dracula, eh?

[C4RM5]

Nah, not really into becoming a stand up comedian , geography is more my thing. Any way you don't know what evidence I was talking about. By evidence I mean the evidence surronding the disapperance of Jesus' bod

---

My evidence is that Jesus' body cannot of been stolen, therefore why did his body dissappear.