The Atheist Experience

And that is a sure sign of the Christian Cult of Ignorance, Dishonesty & Avoidance. If their dogma is so weak that it cannot stand scrutiny, if their position is so baseless that they need to tell folk to stop learning, then it is the time to clap the soles of your sandals together and walk away.

No Phat, once again you are simply misrepresenting reality. Science claims no exclusivity and in fact is based on the premise that assertions should be questioned until supported by overwhelming evidence and independent confirmation and then only held tentatively pending future discoveries.

Ah, you mean the things the apologists avoid like the plague? Which God? Is belief in Ganesha more reasonable than throwing Ganesha away? Is belief in Allah more reasonable than throwing Allah away?

Read the Bible Phat. What does it say "Jesus" said about exclusivity.Read further and look at what is attributed to God.Look at Exodus 20: Note it does not say "I am the Lord "THE GOD" but rather Your God.What makes the God you created special?Edited by jar, : No reason given.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Again, a really really really silly post.I am a believer Phat.

I'm not even sure what that could mean but it's certainly irrelevant. The point is that there is no evidence that anyone but humans or other living critters could do anything for a man in Texas on a dust speck in the midst of a vast universe or anyone else. I have no idea where any response if there is a response comes from or know any way to test or tell where any response came from. Because, as the Bible stories show, the source really is irrelevant. In Genesis 2&3 it is the serpent that tells the truth about what eating the fruit would do while the God character deceives and misleads.It is only on content that humans can act.

I accept that it is ONE of many quotes attributed to Jesus that are often contradictory.And that the author of John was vigorously marketing his product.

We have what is written. We have the Jesus that the author of John describes and the Jesus of Matthew 25 and we can compare what is actually written. You have several questions and each opens yet another whole discussion.First is the issue of Authorship. Honestly, we have no idea who actually authored most of the Bible. But folk like the concept of "Authorship" of "Source" and so they tended to attribute authorship.Next, Authenticity. I don't think anyone or at least most folk question whether or not the work called the Gospel of John is authentic. It's not like the long ending of Mark that seems quite obviously something added much later than the original. But John is quite different from the other Gospels, the Synoptic Gospels and that difference has been long acknowledged. The author of John as tends to emphasis Jesus performing miracles to show his divinity; a subtle difference in marketing and intent. In the others Jesus tends to do miracles because they need doing and quite often is quoted as asking folk not to tell or not taking credit for the miracle.Finally is what you call "ulterior motive. I don't even try to address motive. I think that is irrelevant and also simply impossible to determine. What I do is point to what is actually written. I'll leave issues like motive to the carny barkers.

It really is simple Faith.Produce the originals.

It really is simple Faith, produce the originals.

Produce the original Faith.The issue is very similar to science.We can say the some dinosaurs were feathered because there is actual evidence showing feathered dinosaurs.We can say that some dinosaurs were brightly colored because there is actual evidence showing colored dinosaurs.But there is NO evidence of what was in any original Biblical manuscript.

But science actually has evidence of the original. Physical evidence.Now produce the original biblical manuscript.

I'm pointing out that you have no available facts. There is no evidence of what was actually in the original texts.

No Faith, you have asserted that people try to figure out what was added or copy errors or common to multiple sources but you have offered NO reasoning or evidence or model or mechanism or method or process or procedure to demonstrate how anyone can know what was in the original manuscripts.Edited by jar, : hat ---> what

Again, there is nothing there that shows how to tell what was in the original.