Religion, what's the point?

In terms of evidence for his existence Mohammed is on a different level from Jesus.

There is absolutely no question whether Mohammed was a real person. There's plenty of reliable evidence. In the case of Jesus, there are no primary sources from his lifetime. My guess is he's a composite of a couple of real people.

I'd put the order of likelihood of existence something like this:

Mohammed
Buddha
Jesus
Krishna
Moses
Thor
Liam Miller

Yeah i know a few Mohammed's but that hardly proves the point. There is no certainty when it comes to the abrahamic faiths, i'm certain of that.

Please prove conclusively though cause I love to learn.
 
What do you think about the points made in the article? Does it answer your question about the age issue?

I've seen it said before that girls at the time entered puberty earlier. It's a complete myth, if anything the opposite is true. Today's 9 year olds, with better diets and modern medicine will be more mature by that age.

By getting it on with a nine year old Mohammed just stayed true to what he was, an ill educated, poorly developed barbarian. But that's what you get when this god figure is insistent on only revealing himself to these types of people, who all happen to live in the same area. China would have even a better choice, given they could read and write.
 
On a slightly different note, this is pure genius: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...tyle-hoax-by-an-anti-religious-***********-2/

But today I’m presenting something else: a real Sokal-style hoax that Boudry has perpetrated. He informed me yesterday that he had submitted a fake, post-modernish and Sophisticated-Theological™ abstract to two theology conferences:

By the way, I thought you might find this funny. I wrote a spoof abstract full of theological gibberish (Sokal-style) and submitted it to two theology conferences, both of which accepted it right away. It got into the proceedings of the Reformational Philosophy conference. See Robert A. Maundy (an anagram of my name) on p. 22 of the program proceedings.
 
I've seen it said before that girls at the time entered puberty earlier. It's a complete myth, if anything the opposite is true. Today's 9 year olds, with better diets and modern medicine will be more mature by that age.

By getting it on with a nine year old Mohammed just stayed true to what he was, an ill educated, poorly developed barbarian. But that's what you get when this god figure is insistent on only revealing himself to these types of people, who all happen to live in the same area. China would have even a better choice, given they could read and write.

The Arabs could read and write too. That's why there's, you know, the Qu'ran...
 
I might write a very long article suggesting that anyone who writes should be considered a kiddy fiddler because people make jokes about Catholic Priests and choirboys bottoms.
 
On a slightly different note, this is pure genius: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress...tyle-hoax-by-an-anti-religious-***********-2/

Oh dear, there's a lot of fecking gibberish in that :lol:
 
In terms of evidence for his existence Mohammed is on a different level from Jesus.

There is absolutely no question whether Mohammed was a real person. There's plenty of reliable evidence. In the case of Jesus, there are no primary sources from his lifetime. My guess is he's a composite of a couple of real people.

Wouldn't rule out that he is a group of some persons too. Or probably, the face of a group of some persons.
 
His scribe could though. That's the beauty of scribes.

I enjoy a game of Chinese whispers as much as the next man, but when it comes down to passing on the unaltered final revelation, a block of information that would change the future of the world, I don't think that was the time or the place to play a party game.
 
I enjoy a game of Chinese whispers as much as the next man, but when it comes down to passing on the unaltered final revelation, a block of information that would change the future of the world, I don't think that was the time or the place to play a party game.


Imagine if god actually said "Pray to Alan" all this time they had his name wrong.

No wonder he is bringing down the smite!
 
False piety, but in either case Ribery is too much of a cock himself for me to have any sympathy for him (not to mention it's a ridiculous thing to get upset by, especially considering Ribery himself is no stranger to throwing liquids in other people's faces).
 
In terms of evidence for his existence Mohammed is on a different level from Jesus.

There is absolutely no question whether Mohammed was a real person. There's plenty of reliable evidence. In the case of Jesus, there are no primary sources from his lifetime. My guess is he's a composite of a couple of real people.

I'd put the order of likelihood of existence something like this:

Mohammed
Buddha
Jesus
Krishna
Moses
Thor
Liam Miller

Where would you put Guru Nanak in that list?
 
:lol:

Am I the only person getting an advert for the Church of Mormon at the start of this thread? Some smiling old boy with the caption 'God may not lighten my load but he will strengthen my back'.
 
BKPdP0TCIAE5WmS.jpg


"Me and my bro Ribéry everything is Fine it was nonalcohol Beer so all Good"

Good to hear. https://twitter.com/JB17Official/status/334354061157605376
 
I don't know about anybody else but I've already heard numerous religious leaders/people separate their faith from the Woolwich attacks.

Will they ever learn that the only way to eradicate extremism is to accept some responsibility for it.
 
Pope Francis says atheists can be good

Atheists should be seen as good people if they do good, Pope Francis has said in his latest urging that people of all religions, and none, work together.

The leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics made his comments in the homily of his morning mass at his residence, a daily event at which he speaks without prepared comments.

He told the story of a Catholic who asked a priest if even atheists had been redeemed by Jesus.

"Even them, everyone," the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. "We all have the duty to do good," he said.

"Just do good, and we'll find a meeting point," the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment: "But I don't believe. I'm an atheist."

Francis's reaching out to atheists and people who belong to no religion is in marked contrast to the attitude of his predecessor, Benedict, who sometimes prompted complaints from non-Catholics that he seemed to see them as second-class believers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/pope-francis-atheists-can-be-good

Sensible comment is sensible.
 
Great quote from Gervais. On Twitter he said now Katy Perry and Rihanna have sent their prayers to Oklahoma he feels silly because he only sent money.
 
Francis certainly seems to be a step up from the last pope.

Francis certainly seems less objectionable than Benedict, and at least he's not comparing atheists to Nazis. But he is still saying that we're all going to burn in Hell for eternity unless we wise up and repent for our mortal sin of not being a Catholic.
 
Francis certainly seems less objectionable than Benedict, and at least he's not comparing atheists to Nazis. But he is still saying that we're all going to burn in Hell for eternity unless we wise up and repent for our mortal sin of not being a Catholic.

He's wrong though, innit?

You need to be a Protestant to avoid burning in hell.
 
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

Does this mean someone who's never come into contact with any religion at all can still go to heaven.

I've always wondered what fate awaits those who have never come into contact with any religion and will never be reached by anyone who preaches it. Well the same as everyone else obviously but what do religious people and leaders think will happen when they die?
 
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”Does this mean someone who's never come into contact with any religion at all can still go to heaven.

I've always wondered what fate awaits those who have never come into contact with any religion and will never be reached by anyone who preaches it. Well the same as everyone else obviously but what do religious people and leaders think will happen when they die?

So the Catholic Church want people to feck them? Eye for an eye I guess.
 
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who know about the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”

Does this mean someone who's never come into contact with any religion at all can still go to heaven.

I've always wondered what fate awaits those who have never come into contact with any religion and will never be reached by anyone who preaches it. Well the same as everyone else obviously but what do religious people and leaders think will happen when they die?
I always understood that those in ignorance or following a different faith could be saved. No hope for those who knew of Christianity and rejected or ignored it