tryto

Hello. I already made a correction, but forgot to post it ( :oops: ) After consulting with owners, the highest any of them had ever hit was 16 with magic. In addition, previously the combat guide had 5-15 as the maximum, but a correction was inputted for 5-16 and was accompanied by a proof-shot. Therefore, I decided that the combat guide was likely correct, and altered the item db to read the same. If anyone could confirm or prove that the maximum with magic is above 16, a screenshot of it would be greatly appreciated! :)

So it does work, it's just not useful because it's far slower than a dragon axe.

Fixed, thanks. ( :oops: )

Good luck proving religion is outside of the realm of reason, since that's a complete falsehood. You're right, I didn't word that very well at all. By reason I meant factual reasoning. God cannot be proven to exist using factual evidence. That would be my point. God only exists through faith, which cannot be justified with fact. God cannot be proven to exist, but he also cannot be proven to not exist. Even given that, people still pretend they can prove/disprove God's existence, which is just ridiculous. I agree. God is inherently not falsifiable. God could probably prove his own existence, but no mortal could. However, with the clear complete lack of evidence, illogical traits, and the evils that have been propagated through religion, I do not believe that God exists.

Then why does the current pope believe in it and has issued statements to that effect? Why does nearly all of the American Christian population believe in it as a real place? Surely they haven't been...misled, have they? Luke alludes to sources. Luke admits his information is second-hand. At least he's somewhat honestly reporting facts. It's Matthew I think; has something to do with Herod iirc. Did you just admit to a inconsistency? :P. I did not say, nor did Carrier say, that it was less historically ACCURATE. I said it was more of a historical DOCUMENT. If I quoted something, you might want to know where it came from, right? That's a fixture of historical documents too, which Luke simply attempts to do, while the other Gospels don't. Furthermore, your entire "it didn't link to any other historical sources other than the Gospels" is a flat out lie. You really haven't addressed anything. All you've done is stick your finger in your ear and proceed to ignore the absolutely overwhelming number of historians who do not dispute the fact that Jesus existed. Link to Richard Carrier all you like. He's in he minority. I could link to Kent Hovind all day long, but that doesn't make any of the things he says true or represent a majority. Honestly, I'm not gonna' toot my own horn, so to speak, but this isn't a pissing contest-- This is a me proving you wrong contest. 2.) Furthermore, I'd like to know what, exactly was stolen from both Pythagoras and Empedocles. Pythagoras himself, believed in metempsychosis, which is equatable to the Hindu concept of reincarnation. As for Empedocles, well, the only thing I guess which could have been stolen from him was his concept of Love and Strife being the ultimate cosmic forces, but even that is a stretch. Did it say it was stolen? No, it said it was the same type of document, just like how a physics textbook and a chemistry textbook are both science textbooks. The label you proceed to place on those historians who do not support the "Jesus didn't exist" position is laughable. So, in other words, the majority of historians aren't really historians. Only that fringe group upon which you agree? Okay. Tell me where I said that at all. Please don't put words into my mouth. Tell me where I said that, and I'll gladly back it up. I may have said that those who wrote the Gospels weren't historians, and damn right they weren't. Now, I know that the Illiad isn't a Holy Book and I feel the point of the comparison was lost upon you. We were talking about the New Testament versus other Classical Era literature, of which there are significantly more copies and are about 99.5% contextually pure. Furthermore, yes, the oldest extant manuscript available is called the Rylands Papyrus. However, because that it the oldest surviving manuscript we have doesn't mean that the Gospels weren't written until then, as there is significant evidence that the 4 Gospels were mostly-- If not wholely-- Written in the 1st century AD. Generally, the proposed written dates of the 4 Gospels are as follows: Mark: Somewhere between 57 - 73 AD Matthew: 80 - 85 AD Luke: 80 - 85 AD John: 90 - 100 AD Because it wasn't until many years after Jesus's death. Surely you've heard of the Myth of Bloody Mary?(http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/bloodymary.asp) It has sprung up in a very short time period; there are many other examples. I've talked about this even in my very first post and cited those dates nearly exactly, if you bothered to read it. I'm not disputing them(except for possibly John, it was written over a long time period and could be placed later or even earlier than your estimates. Rylands isn't much of a manuscript; it's a few verses, like I said :P. Really, I wonder what the point of bringing this up was. Anyway, continuing on. I READ the entire thing. I read the whole thing, looking for these non-biblical sources. I found some on a linked page, but I addressed all of them in my first post. Furthermore, your entire "it didn't link to any other historical sources other than the Gospels" is a flat out lie. You really haven't addressed anything. All you've done is stick your finger in your ear and proceed to ignore the absolutely overwhelming number of historians who do not dispute the fact that Jesus existed. Link to Richard Carrier all you like. He's in he minority. I could link to Kent Hovind all day long, but that doesn't make any of the things he says true or represent a majority. Argumentum ad populum. Surely an all-powerful being could keep his Word from being completely wrecked and destroyed in meaning through translation. After all, it's only the key to salvation and the record of his glory. Would it not be simpler to just state that it is the line of Mary? Oh yeah, it's supposed to be as confusing as possible, heaven only has so many rooms in the father's house. Is rape morally wrong? Does the bible say that murder is wrong?

Fixed "play-->player. resources->An often-used method of gaining points consists of staking out medium to high level resource(s), then transiting between them and a kiln. Dally is a word :P. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dally (3nd definition) To delay unnecessarily; to while away. Thanks. If you find any others, it's appreciated :)

All I've done is what's necessary to get into the whirlpool. I got my first mithril dragon task yesterday at nearly 100 tasks completed :P

No, you didn't refute anything. All you've done is scream "They're not contemporary and they don't hold water" which is itself a fairly odd claim, to say the least. Not only is the definition you're using of contemporary incorrect, but you then apply standards to the Bible (In this case, the Gospels) that are not applied to other historical documents. The Bible claims to be the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD, WHERE IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW IT YOU WILL BE PUNISHED FOR ALL ETERNITY. Less is applied to the Bible; Luke is the only Gospel that could actually be called a historical document, as he at least alludes to a source and where he got his information. "[Luke and Acts are] the only book in the New Testament that actually belongs to the genre of history. Luke alone claims to have written a history (a diagesis...pragmatô, "narrative of events," Luke 1:1). Luke alone claims to have done the work of a historian for the purpose of establishing an accurate account (Luke 1:2-3). Luke alone employs any of the distinct markers of the historical genre (such as fixing dates, e.g. Luke 3:1). And Luke's preface consciously mimics those of known histories, and is an important marker of that genre--a marker absent from all other Gospels. In contrast, the other Gospels seem to fit the genre of mythic biography, in the specialized sense of a "didactic hagiography," an instructional account of a holy man, identical to the legends of medieval saints or the sacred biographies of men like Pythagoras or Empedocles. The meaning of such texts could lay more in universal truths communicated symbolically than in particular claims to historical fact as we understand them today. Whether you agree with that or not, only Luke-Acts bears any definite claim to being a historical account." ~Carrier Real historians tell their readers HOW they got their information and where. They tell if there are contradicting views, and they explain why they came to these conclusions. *Continued below* Apparently you are unfamiliar with historicity as it relates to the Gospels and Jesus. Twenty years is a relatively SHORT period of time for writings concerning Jesus to exist after his death to begin surfacing. Most writings of a central figure do not begin to appear until, at the very least, one to two centuries after his or her death. Look at these two links: http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html As you can clearly see, the Bible (In this case the New Testament) far surpasses any other literature of the Classical era in every respect. To try to cast doubt on the New Testament because there is a span of approximately 70 years between Jesus' death and the completion of the New Testament is incredibly dubious, considering you would have to simultaneously discredit ALL other major works of not only the Classical period, but also the Early and maybe even the High Middle Ages, as well. The Iliad was never the holy books of a major religion. It is simply a fact that allegedly holy books are regularly reproduced by members of their respective religions. The larger the religion, the larger the number of copies made. There are also large numbers of copies of the Buddhist Sutras and Islam's Koran. The number of texts is greatly increased in all of these counting by the sheer number of fragments, which can be merely a few verses. While you're on the subject of infallibility, the SECOND oldest surviving christian document is a non-canonical gospel from around 150CE, which differs in some of the canonical gospels stories.(The oldest is a fragment of John from about 125). No. Mainly because it's been proven to not be a fake. As Mr. Garrison would say, Present them. This is not a refutation. This is, pure and simple, a conspiracy theory and a fringe belief among historians. Not only that, but it sounds like something picked straight out of Zeitgeist. Fine. Let's use Hinduism if you get so antsy about using a similar religion. Who first spread it? You obviously aren't a Hindu and don't believe that it's true, so what motive would they have had to use it. This doesn't even warrant a serious response. Oh? When I quote you exactly and change the noun, it doesn't get a serious response, but when you say it, it's okay? And I take it you didn't read the link I gave you, huh? Yes, it's to Wikipedia but it's got oodles and oodles of documented sources, which you could at the very least take time to read. But, alas, I doubt you will. You'd rather keep spouting this "Jesus didn't exist!" nonsense. I did read it. I then didn't reply about it, because it didn't site any historical sources other than the Gospels, as far as I could tell. There are other cites in other wikipedia articles, but I've addressed those in my very first post on this subject. It was mainly to modern day historians; I could link you to Richard Carrier and others all day long, but that wouldn't be fun at all. Don't need to. Proving whether or not Jesus existed is not in the same vein as proving whether or not he's the Son of God. One is in the realm of history, the other religious studies (Or philosophy, either or). There is no reason to believe that accepting Jesus existed means you have to accept he's also the Son of God. But I'm sure you knew that and all. This is turning into a pissing contest, which serves no purpose whatsoever. I can post stuff, and you can link to wikipedia and baptist sites all day, but it won't serve a purpose. Hmm. On the current subject, I think I'll just put in ONE contradiction, chosen at random. Who is the father of Joseph? Matthew 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. So? Who's Jesus' Step-granddaddy? EDIT: Wait. Sly, you are FOR a universal morality, but you're still defending this guy: "They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man. Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba-the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. [Numbers 31:7-18]" "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the LORD your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. [Deuteronomy 20:10-18 New International Version]"

Yes. And that's the end of this story. Not that there was a story to begin with. I don't have time to deal with intellectual dishonesty, so A.) Re-read my post above and B.) Read this ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus Have I not already refuted this? Name a historical reference to Jesus in his time that is not a forgery. I mentioned several sources that refer to Jesus, and none of them are contemporary or hold water. Please, simply cite a source and prove me wrong. What do you mean by "not contemporary"? Surely you realize that the Gospels were all written in the the 1st century AD, right? Surely you read my post on how the Gospels were not written until at least 20-50 years after his death at the EARLIEST? One passage in Josephus' writings are considered to be a fake by most historians. The other passage, in which it mentions James as being Jesus' brother, is not a fake. I won't bother debating this point, although it has been questioned by Schurer and others. Humphreys even suggested that it referred to a different person altogether. Would you not admit that if you found a passage in a historical text that was a clear forgery, it would not cast doubt on the rest of his works? And? See my blurb about Peter, James and John. And? See my refutation of the suffering for a lie chronicles. Do you believe Mithra rose from the dead? What possible motive did people who spread that particular fairy tale have to gain from it? "Dude, everyone knows Odysseus existed, only naive people don't." "Odysseus existed, end of story". "Odysseus existed, good luck proving he didn't" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis Oh look, there's a wikipedia article about it, it must be true. Again; I don't particularly care if he existed or not; even if you prove that he did, it still doesn't prove that he resurrected from the dead, performed miracles, and died for our sins.

So... People are actually debating whether or not Jesus actually existed? He did. Good luck proving he didn't. Is flinging the burden of proof onto people the only debating tactic you know of? Funny thing, is that the people who deny Jesus existed is going to not only refute almost every reputed historian, since the consensus amongst them is that Jesus existed, but also play a game of "fill in the blanks" which is inevitably going to lead to big, giant, gaping holes. I don't fling the burden of proof anywhere, since there's nothing left to prove as it's already been proven. Why reinvent the wheel when it's already been invented? The assertion that Jesus did not exist is a fringe belief. Jesus' existence is accepted by almost all historians, and the reason is that there is PLENTY of evidence. A religion that claimed him as its founder was spread all over the Roman Empire within 20 years of his death, and, while there is no contemporary evidence of him, there is much contemporary evidence of those who knew him, including his brother. In fact, those who knew him not only talked about him, they were killed for talking about him. The reason "Jesus did not exist" is not a proposition that is taken seriously by historians is because the only alternative to his existence is the biggest and stupidest conspiracy theory you ever heard. "There is no contemporary writing" is the TOTAL argument of the "Jesus did not exist" crowd. There is nothing else, as all other evidence says he existed. Again, there was the church that claimed him as its founder only 20 years later and there is contemporary evidence of his friends and family. For example, Paul wrote that he went to Jerusalem to see James, the Lord's brother. So, what's YOUR theory? Was Paul lying about going to see James, or was James lying about having a brother? Because if there was no Jesus, those are your only two alternatives. All in all, either you accept that: 1.) Peter, James and John got together and said, "I know! Let's make up a religion about a fake person who's supposed to be the Messiah and gets nailed to a cross! That'll go over big!" And, then, of course, they got NOTHING from this bizarre hoax-- Which they kept up for DECADES-- Except for poverty, beatings, exile and execution. Yet they kept it up for 50 years anyway. Or: 2.) A guy named Jesus lived in Galilee 2000 years ago, and his followers started a religion about him after he died. Gee, that's a tough call. Yea, 90% of historians, atheist or not KNOW Jesus existed, but the Atheists or muslims or w\e say he was just a person. What? They KNOW he existed? Where is there proof for this knowledge? None? Okay then. That's a bald assertion with nothing behind it. People suffering for a religion proves nothing, many cults have been formed where they all committed suicide, sometimes after mutilating themselves. Does that make their religion true? Of course not. 10% of historians don't think he existed? That's a fair amount :P. It's also a random statistic you made up on the spot. The only historical writings I've seen about James the Just is in the NT(not contemporary) and Josephus(you've seen my arguments about him). Paul never met Jesus or talked to him at all. What? You want more negative proof? How about presenting some evidence FOR a mythical figure existing. You want a choice? What's the possibility between these two choices: 1)A zombie went around preaching performing miracles and then resurrected and died for your sins 2)A few people lied or had voices in their heads.

I'm assuming that he 1) existed and 2) wasn't a liar. He said he was the Messiah several times. This shows that he knew/thought/fantasized of being the Messiah(should he have existed). Your point about not wanting fame is probably true; but according to the bible he says that HE IS the Messiah. I called your argument stupid, not you. :) Do I need to pepper all of my statements with disclaimers? Isn't it obvious that I don't think Jesus existed? If you think that your holy book is "useless" and "not literal" why follow it? I'm honestly interested, I could never figure out how non-literal theists justify themselves. I can understand fundamentalists, even though they make zero sense and are obviously very sheltered, but non-literal translation of the bible just doesn't make any sense. Please, explain what he meant when someone called him the Messiah, and he says "I am the one of whom you speak". It's literally impossible to get through to theists without making assumptions that they're text is true, because otherwise all you can do is say "it's hogwash" then they say no, ad nauseum.

That's a stupid argument. Nice attempt to dodge that your argument was completely baseless. You obviously believe that he is real, so I refuted it on the assumption that he is. If he exists, he would have been extremely contradictory, which is even more proof against his existence. If I said that Odysseus existed, and furthermore said that he stated that "I do not exist", would you not rightly challenge that supposed statement by him as ridiculous? If I stated that Odysseus was a peaceful man and never harmed anyone, then in the Iliad it mentions that he did, would you challenge that? Of course. Again, moronic argument.

Heh. Jesus calls himself the "son of Man" and the "Lord" and the "lord of the Sabbath" and other names. John 1:41, "He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which translated means Christ)." and John 4:25-26, "The woman said to Him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.' 26 Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am He.'" He is here called the Messiah and then confirms it also. Matt. 16:16-17, "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'" Mark 14:61-62, "But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One? 62 And Jesus said, I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." Also see also Luke 24:26,46; John 10:23 Christ is Messiah (John 1:41); Christ as Son of Man coming on the clouds (Matt. 26:63-64); Christ as Savior (Luke 2:11); Christ as King of the Jews (Luke 23:2-3); Christ will reign forever (Rev. 11:15), EDIT: Just to add onto my myth postings, a common factor of those who a)have a message to spread and B) exist is to WRITE ABOUT IT. Jesus never wrote a SINGLE SCRAP of paper on ANY subject. Ever. In addition, Paul never records that he meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any references at all to Jesus's Earthly life. All accounts about Jesus from him could only have come from others or his fantasy.

Your argument is akin to if, thousands of years from now, a comic book was discovered. Since This Superman comic book involved a city and buildings we knew to exist, we should thereby claim that Superman existed? Also, I don't think you know the meaning of interpolation. Josephus wrote his work, and then, many years later, someone else came along and wrote over his work a forgery. This is historically known for hundreds of years, and it's not even a GOOD forgery, lol. The forgery is written similar to a religious writing in distinct awe of Jesus and his "miracles", but Josephus wasn't a Christian at all. The Iliad is an established work from the 8th to 9th Century BC. I would like to see some 8th century BC work that states that it is fiction, and Odysseus did not exist. If I were to claim to you that Osiris or Odysseus were historical figures, you'd naturally want some proof on my behalf, which would be quite fair. Given the historical and supernatural claims of Jesus, some types of reasonable evidence that we would logically require would be: *Contemporary references to Jesus *Eye-Witness accounts *Fulfilled Messianic prophecies *Consistent genealogical records We have NONE of the above. Luke and Matthew even contradict each others genealogies of Joseph. There are no eye-witness accounts as stated above. Jesus fulfilled no prophecies of the Messiah, as stated above. There are no references to Jesus in his time, again as stated above. A logical person , thinking rationally, would conclude upon this proof that Jesus's historicity is greatly compromised, and that it is a distinct possibility that he is simply a myth. The only argument remaining is, quite simply, faith, which is inherently irrational.

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too. Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides: *a holy text *anecdotal comments *a feeling (I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence) Casting doubt on science, making arguments from ignorance, and pointing to the God of The Gaps is what I often see. If any theist will show me any evidence besides this, I'd be glad to hear it :) I just don't think any actually exists. Then try to prove to me that Jesus existed historically. To be the son of God and worthy of worship, the first hurdle is to actually exist, no? There is a HUGE amount of evidence against a global flood. Where did the water come from? A firmament of water? Where did the water go to? How can you explain the age of mountains? Why aren't Sierra Nevada's eroded as much as the Appalachians at the time as the flood? If a flood actually happened, many ice caps could not have formed, such as the Greenland Ice Cap; it could not have grown under the environmental conditions of the last 10k years. Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive amount of extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up? Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. I won't even go into the impossibility of Noah fitting that many animals into an ark that size, the contradiction in genesis of either 2 or 7 animals of each kind, why there isn't an ENORMOUS blip in population factors, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for days. Well, obviously, some parts of the flood are spiritual, that we do not have evidence for, such as, as you said where did the water come from, and go? Well, I'm not denying there's no evidence for that. But I saw a really good link for explaining the flood, let me try and find it, I'll post it when I do. And I mean, with the ark, I've noticed that myself, we weren't there, so we don't know how it fit in. Found one: Not the same, but still very very good. http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn046/noahsflood.htm And sorry, but lol Lent, owned. Fine, I'll go through that ridiculous article and debunk it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html contains remarks about the impossibility of fitting every organism on earth on a 450-foot long ark. * How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter. * Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached. * Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen. There is just TOO MUCH WATER involved. The article doesn't even attempt to explain where it went. (Article points to a "burial ground") How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain: * the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants? * the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?) * why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata. * why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted. * why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground? * how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them. * why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata. * why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992] * why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils? * why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [stewart, 1983]. * why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer? (Article argues Bias) Before you argue that fossil evidence was dated and interpreted to meet evolutionary assumptions, remember that the geological column and the relative dates therein were laid out by people who believed divine creation, before Darwin even formulated his theory. (See, for example, Moore [1973], or the closing pages of Dawson [1868].) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... ml#r7Moore http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... l#r7Dawson AGAIN. GIVE ME SOME PROOF. You are trying to prove conclusions you've already gotten, a direct contradiction of the scientific method.

Well, I'm pretty sure some theists say that their subjective evidence is hardcore too. Try as I might, I have never seen a theist express any proof besides: *a holy text *anecdotal comments *a feeling (I recognize none of these as persuasive evidence) Casting doubt on science, making arguments from ignorance, and pointing to the God of The Gaps is what I often see. If any theist will show me any evidence besides this, I'd be glad to hear it :) I just don't think any actually exists. Then try to prove to me that Jesus existed historically. To be the son of God and worthy of worship, the first hurdle is to actually exist, no? There is a HUGE amount of evidence against a global flood. Where did the water come from? A firmament of water? Where did the water go to? How can you explain the age of mountains? Why aren't Sierra Nevada's eroded as much as the Appalachians at the time as the flood? If a flood actually happened, many ice caps could not have formed, such as the Greenland Ice Cap; it could not have grown under the environmental conditions of the last 10k years. Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive amount of extinction, and other characters. Why do none of these show up? Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. I won't even go into the impossibility of Noah fitting that many animals into an ark that size, the contradiction in genesis of either 2 or 7 animals of each kind, why there isn't an ENORMOUS blip in population factors, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Thousands of years ago, in this scenario, God would have been responsible for lightning, and other easily explainable natural phenomenon today. It's also an argument from ignorance- "We don't know what caused it, therefore God." If I'm not mistaken, the Spaghetti Monster is claimed to have created life and the Big Bang. If not, I could make up a supernatural entity that I say is responsible for these, and it would have the same plausibililty of God.

Fixed the typo(yes, it's 97). Thanks.

This is just some proof that has been compiled by people smarter than me. *Josephus is a known forgery, an interpolation penciled in over his work sometime in the fourth century. There ARE some earlier volumes found which do not have this. http://www.infidels.org/library/histori ... _live.html *Pliny does not mention Jesus by name, and only alludes to a Christ(again, this is ~70 years after death) *Tacitus again, only refers to Christos, does not mention his name, and is ~80 years after death. *Suetonius does not mention a Christ or Jesus. Heh. Next.

Did Jesus Even Exist? Cobbled together something to get this thread off this irritating tangent. Part A: No References to Jesus in his time. The earliest writings on Jesus are the Gospels. The earliest of these, Mark, was written no earlier than 65 CE, and possibly as late as 75 CE. Jesus died around 30-35 CE, so Mark would have been written between 30-50 years AFTER Jesus's alleged death. Later references to Jesus are listed below, in addition to the New Testament. · Pliny - c110CE · Thallus - cited in c300CE · Talmud - 200-500CE · Suetonius - c120CE · Tactitus - 110CE Jesus is shown in the Gospels to be of rock star popularity; huge crowds show up to meet him, people unable to move have to be lowered into buildings, crowds grow so big he is forced to sermonize from a boat, and thousands showed up to watch him perform miracles. Wouldn't some of these people find this important enough to write about? B. Prophecies. The messiah was supposed to fulfill certain prophecies. A. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4) B. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world -- on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One". (Zechariah 14:9). C. Build the Third Temple. (Ezekiel 37:26-28 ). D. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel. (Isaiah 43:5-6). Jesus has fulfilled none of these prophecies. A second coming argument is useless as Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists. OT passages are often taken out of context to show Jesus as having fulfilled prophecies. http://my.opera.com/Heathen%20Dan/blog/ ... skepticism C. Eye-Witness Accounts. There aren't any. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." [Luke 1:1-2 NIV] What we hear are tales written several decades after the events have happened, and by people who WEREN'T EVEN THERE. Sly mentioned a game of telephone earlier :P. They can't be trusted as accurate. D. Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Marks Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts. - Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle Here is a list of the parallels between the Gospels and the OT.

Because it's not an atheists bailiwick to disprove something unproven in the first place. By the very definition of the word, an atheist cannot make a positive claim. I say again, prove that Carl Sagan does not have an invisible, undetectable dragon in his garage.

I am a de facto atheist. I'm comfortable with my stance; I consider the probability of a God existing to be so infinitesimally small, it's of no real consequence. I don't feel the need to be agnostic of the possibility of invisible, undetectable pixel fairies hovering around my arms, threatening me with death unless I offer honey up to them. There's a chance they exist, but are you agnostic towards them? I doubt it. You can never have 100% certitude of there being no god(s), but you can get pretty damn close, and that's where I am. In addition, I am completely certain that the Abrahamic God does not exist; his qualities contradict each other, similar to the fact that I am certain that you cannot have a square circle. In matters of anything completely unfalsifiable, you cannot be 100% certain, but what's the point of considering that mermaids are behind you right now, that Carl Sagan has a dragon in his garage, and that the Universe is a mere 6,000 years old? There is simply no evidence for any supernatural occurrences or god(s).

It's an overly literal intepretation of scripture, in the words of Pope John Paul II: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_ ... 99_en.html Amongst theologists it's usually accepted that "hell" is not a place of actual 'physical torture'. It means departion from God, and being inadmissible to heaven. Amateur theologists or smaller sects sometimes intepret the verses as meaning literal, eternal physical suffering extracted by a supposedly benevolent God (which itself is a paradox exploited by philosophists like Epicurus). http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262007/ne ... dnews_.htm That's the present one. Popes contradict each other all the time, none of them can agree. Sorry, but a quote from the Pope doesn't necessarily convince me, as I can easily find one who disagrees with John Paul. Who decides which parts of the Bible are literal or not? Who can decide that the unambiguous wording of Deuteronomy to not eat shellfish, pork, or wear polyester is either outdated or metaphorical? Why can John Paul endorse evolution when it is expressly stated as not happening in the Bible? Is that metaphorical too? Why can't I say that the 10 commandments are metaphorical, and I can murder everyone I wanted to and make graven images? Just as a note, is it honestly expected that the Tribe of Israel had no laws or commandments until Moses came down from the Mount? Religion tries to take credit for these types of moral laws, but am I to believe that the Tribe got all that way with absolutely NO laws at all, murdering and raping each other as they pleased? I don't think so.

I highly doubt Jesus would be telling people that if they sin, they will burn in a garbage dump named the Valley of Hinnom. The continuously burning garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom, Gehenna (lit. hell) was used to burn criminals, usurpers, carcasses of dead animals, etc... It was an actual physical place in Jerusalem where the worst of the worst would be disposed. At no point do Jesus or the Bible mention anything about your "soul" ending up in there. Book of Revelations and Hebrews 10:27 also mention 'raging fire' or 'lake of fire' in relation to 'gehenna'. Matthew 25:41 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Eternal. Explain the word eternal. Explain the word punishment.

(Playing devil's advocate here.) That's exactly it. We can never prove it incorrect, so technically there is no proof that God doesn't exist, either. I've always looked at burden of proof as a two-way street. You don't believe in hell? Doesn't that contradict your own beliefs? You are correct. We can never fully disprove God; he is, by definition, not falsifiable, which is an important scientific concept. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ) However, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. While not completely true, it definitely does not help to PROVE God. There just plain isn't any evidence to support the existence of a God. In a debate, atheists can put up proofs against God until they're blue in the face, but because he isn't falsifiable, you can't prove that he doesn't exist. And that is why the burden of proof exists. Without it, it's a case of one group saying "NUH-UH" over and over again.