To the athiests and agnostics I have a question.

Like Mr. Craig states, if we were to entertain an 'eternal regress' in every scientific find, we would get no where; the scientific community accepts this 'explantion' in its own investigations and hypothesis'. It's too bad Dawkins always leans on the most trivial and illogical of defenses; he always sounds like a whiny 15 year old. I find Dr. Craig refreshing as he invites the scientific mind and the logical to reason from.

Oh look, you can download it free in PDF format:


[link to www.andrewsmcmeel.com]

I read the bible and clearly people were quite gullible back then.

"Chop the foreskin of your childrens penis off"
"Why"?
"Cause god said so."
"Okay!"

Enlightened people connected to "GOD" AKA. ALL THAT IS, AKA "Source" And misinterpreted the information they were downloading (channelling).

Their belief systems prevented them from being able to comprehend that they were an extension of this "entity" they were connecting to. They perceived it as it being separate from themselves. They created the god image. This is what started so much chaos.


These so called "holy" people that were so blessed and able to "speak to god" were not actually talking to god. God was not talking to them. They were simply able to put their ego out of the way as much as possible and perceive more of who they were. They interpreted it into things that are now-a-days, basic knowledge.

-Do good to others
-Be respectful
-Treat people the way you want to be treated
-Don't lie
-Don't cheat

This knowledge is accessible to everyone these days. But back then it took enlightened people (who could connect to source without their ego in the way) to bring forth such basic knowledge.


This goes on to this day. But they aren't called gods or prophets or any of that garbage, they are called channels. They are treated equal, everyone can do it.

how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.

how? those two terms seem somehow incongruous.

all the talk about if or if not there is a supreme overlord of existence is meaningless.

purposefully one should identify their own reasoning for living regardless of outside influence, and share their experience with those around them who are just as privileged to be alive at the same time.

you need no religion, no god, no science, no predisposition to be alive.

if we all started really, actually giving a damn about ourselves and others, religion would be obsolete as all would live pious lives without a book of ancient words demanding it.


regarding the original question of what started the starting point, well, our collective mind hasn't been able to determine this yet. I personally much prefer to believe that we are all scientifically proven to exist rather than to give blind faith I was created by that which is.

i mean, technically it is a similiar point of view, except I don't have to keep blind trust or live by ancient organized and arrogant rules created by people with sand in their orifices.

I'd prefer to live by the established understandings of how our organic sentience happens to exist in this extremely rare circumstance called life.

Generally speaking, Atheists don't believe in god but they also believe that things happen outside of their control.


Listen to their speech. They blame others, they blame government, they blame religion. They believe in mystic forces that control their lives.


A perfect atheist would be someone who doesn't believe in god and at the same time believes 100% in themselves and would take things that happen to them in their lives as learning lesson to adjust whatever it is they believe in, into something that would suit them more.

However, this is generally not the case.

Again you seem to be ignoring the point. I was countering the point of their being NO evidence. I never claimed Flavius was a contemporary of Jesus's time period. I could probably point to some Gnostic sources but I suspect you will have the same issue with those as you have with the biblical ones. "Moving the goalposts" by requiring a contemporary non-biblical source is a credibility requirement of your own making.

That said I understand the point you are making in that if 3 days of darkness happened, someone should have certainly written about it. But the lack of survival of such an account isn't compelling enough on its own to completely dismiss out of hand that the account actually occurred as biblically stated.

I have stated and maintain that while evidence exists, it exists in a state of perpetual reasonable doubt. This, I believe, is to give you the option of logically saying you don't believe. The flip side is of course true, though I hardly expect you'll agree: That there is also an option of logically saying that you DO believe the biblical account.

We don't know how the universe was formed. You can speculate by reading a work of fiction or some outdated science book. I won't blame anyone for their opinion and I don't need a fictional god to save my soul. I don't have one. I'll make the best of the time I have on this Earth.

No need to get upset. It is what it is.

So the government, others and religion are "mystic forces"?

That doesn't seem to make a lot sense....

Oh and yes a lot of things that happen in life happen due to circumstances which are indeed not in your control. Deal with it.

Unless of course you are saying that when a car runs into your tail end at 80 kph while you are waiting for a red light is something you have full control of... In which case I would just classify you as a retard.

Time is just a concept. Asking what was there before time is like asking what was there before 3 dimension. Time is just a property of reality.

If you want to find out these things watch this guy

[link to www.youtube.com]

This shit will hut your brain.

He got lots of other stuff that are very interesting.

This is also one of my favorites and gives a pretty good picture about the relativity of time.

[link to www.youtube.com]

I'll quote what you responded to again;


Please show 1 contemporary non-Biblical piece of evidence or reference even of any supernatural occurrence that is described in the Bible.

So you essentially gave me a reference which I never asked for. Even though you claimed I asked for it (see the part I bolded in your post). Oh and it was 3 days? I thought it was 3 hours out of my head? I thought the 3 days darkness thingie was in some end times prophecy? Or was it with Moses in Egypt?

Which is also why I kinda asked for ANY non-biblical reference to ANY supernatural occurrence described in the Bible... I agree not having references to 1 miracle might not be very reliable, but ultimately there just isn't any evidence of any of the miracles (OT or NT) in the Bible.

Then what is it that part of you in in tune with the supernatural? Is there no supernatural?

You are on a conspiracy, alien, lunatic fringe, site for petes sake.

On a more serious note, you cannot know for sure if you have a soul or not. You FEEL you don't have one. You have no proof of it's existance or absence. That question will be answered when your body dies.

You'll just turn off, or you see the light (or darkness) that's so often mentioned in near death experiences. This the simplistic version...there's more to the NDE than just that. My hunch is you'll discover you have a soul.

Quote: This is what started so much chaos.


Matthew 10:34-35
34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—


No, Jesus came to divide and so we are all divided, even whole families. We are divided as to Jesus Christ, Himself so that those who are 'for Him' are clearly recognized so that the 'wheat is separated from the chaff":

Matthew 3:12
12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”



"There are only two classes of people in the world in the sight of God, and both are mentioned in the text, which begins this paper. There are those who are called the wheat, and there are those who are called the chaff.

Viewed with the eye of man, the earth contains many different sorts of inhabitants. Viewed with the eye of God it only contains two. Man's eye looks at the outward appearance—this is all he thinks of. The eye of God looks at the heart—this is the only part of which He takes any account. And tested by the state of their hearts, there are only two classes into which people can be divided—either they are wheat, or they are chaff."

[link to www.gracegems.org]



Matthew 12:30

30 “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Although, interesting, they seem to forget that the 'nothing' to which they refer, is still part of the 'something' called space which was 'created'. Nothingness is not measurable, because we DO NOT have this 'nothing' which existed before the 'something' was created.

Their 'nothing' is still, 'space' or the vacuum which is clearly still part of the 'something'.

Good stuff. I've always had difficulty wrapping my head around the space-time concept, speed of light, gravity, and other offshoots of E=MC2.

Thanks for the links!

The supernatural occurrence I alluded to with the Flavius quote was the resurrection. It simply wasn't contemporary, it was however non-biblical which is all I claiming (the fact that it was supernatural was implied and I thought self evident, the fact that it was contemporary wasn't).

I was quoting you with the 3 days of darkness thing and only for illustration purposes. I don't remember any reference to 3 days of darkness in association to the resurrection, just an earthquake, the empty tomb, a citing of an angel and the sighting of Jesus by multiple witnesses.

Most of the miracles in the bible are of a personal nature. I honestly don't expect many to have corroborating evidence.

And people wonder what sane people have against religions .

Divide, conquer and control is all what any religion wants.

who cares what atheists think cuase they dont think good

Wow. Some negative feedback here. Didn't mean to put some of you on the defensive. Something from nothing? How did gravity come into existence? Just happen?

Gravity exists between two bodies of mass. If the big bang is to be believed then there wouldn't have been any gravity per se before the big bang as there was only the singularity, after the big bang 'gravity' would exist as the attractive force between all bodies of any mass in the universe.

Trying to understand INFINITE concepts with a human brain is like trying to calculate Pi out to 500 decimal places with an abacus - 'taint gonna happen.

You say "being", as if the universe as we know it now is RIPE with 'beings', I simply don't see how there are only these two arguments. The 'something' must be a "being", and the nothing must be a scientific zero. It is just a petty argument that can go nowhere based on how young of a species we are. Both of these arguments are probably wrong. As for the big bang, this is simply deductive mathematics, and as for creation, it is simply an idea, that mankind is so important in the universe that someone like us MUST have done it. We do not even have complete picture of the solar system yet, no less the universe! Evidence of this can be seen respectively between voyager 1's current position, and the near sightedness of measuring light. In the opinion of someone who favors neither a 'nothing', nor a 'divine something', I think the more we find, the stranger it will get. Something tells me not only our universe was birthed of a black hole, but that these are the engines that are creating universes. There are some obscure scientists that will agree with me. It's a fun thing to research if you have some spare time. The idea that a human invention like a 'god', is somehow relevant to what we find is space is just very narrow in my opinion. And for science to say anything is certain which they do not at this point, would also be very narrow minded. So that's where I stand as a human, not as an atheist, or a traditionist.

Was just about to post this...

You're gonna hurt your brain trying to understand the idea that if there really is some omnipotent creator, that it just *is* and always will be.

Trying to imagine the "beginning" is even worse...

Actually it's only Atheists that say this.

An Agnostic will tell you: I don't know and you don't either!

Yes.