Not at all. I'm just saying that greater moral good is only possible if greater moral evil is possible and that all of the moral good that has been done in history should not be overlooked. I'll agree that there are morally grey areas, but I also think there are moral areas that are black and white. I don't think there is any side of the boarder that torturing babies for fun is seen as a moral virtue. The problem is if there is no objective moral standard, then we need to allow for the possibility of scenario where there is the case.
Again, that didn't happen during its inception, which is what I'm talking about.
Huh?

I'll assume that you mean copying from each other. The problem is that they all use names differently. It seems to me that people want to criticize the Gospels for getting some details different and then they want to turn around and say that they copied from each other. These criticisms are fundamentally opposed to each other.

Don't worry, house cats own their humans. You are just part of the people realizing it.

Sidenote : they made us the internet so I don't hold a grudge.

According to Stephen Hawking there is no god because there was no time for god to exist prior the big bang, couse time itself did't exist. It's a very good documentary called "Curiosity" Did God Create the Universe? it's a interesting watch and interesting theory.

To people who are on one or the other end of the spectrum. Saying - "i don't care, am atheist..." or "oh, that's too bad you'll be punished by god for saying that!" - in both cases you both bury yourself in your own "truth comfort zone" but you have no evidence to prove any of it. This is why it is important to ask questions and seek the TRUE answer and If you search for that answer you must examine all possibilities. So excluding one or the other as possibilities is wrong as is totally accepting it. That's why it's better to be neutral, a "truthseeker", so you don't burden yourself with "labels" such as atheist or christian that have no value whatsoever except to divide people over unfounded ground, and we will never find the answer if we do that...

This guy explains is best way - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos

Sorry, should have been clearer. I meant that they were copying a story told by another source. More or less that someone else was dictating what they should be writing.
That doesn't mean that they may not have actually been remembering, but claiming that their unique feat of memory shows that the rest of the account must be true is less probable than them taking dictation.
But I wouldn't know how easy or hard it is to recall names, so I'll take your word that it's not something the average man could easily do.

Honestly, you need a history lesson if you can't tell the difference between how Islam and Christianity were generally spread. Early Christians had no power to spread their religion by threat of violence, and in fact were persecuted by Romans because they taught against worshiping the Emperor, which was seen as a act of sedition.

Obviously it's you who needs the history lesson.

Okay I fucked up the quote there so let me just address this to Soyeong. :D

This is my last deep post for the night and then I have to go back to being a smartass, I'm tired. :P Before that let me say that I really seriously appreciate how you are handling things in here and while we are obviously polar opposites in opinion, it's always nice to have a debate with someone not constantly screaming at, threatening, or name callling. :D

Anyway, and it's a stretch, the Aztecs saw sacrifice (including that of children) as not only a moral virtue but as a moral necessity. I'll leave it to you whether sacrifice constitutes 'torture'.

That being said I'm not logging off but if anyone wants to talk to me the rest of the night please try to keep in juvenile.
Thank you. :D

Not to mention little meek and mild jesus had to come in and save them with slavery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9mYGf52UJY

You might love this doc, i know i did! It's about the aztec of course :P (if you didn't watch it already)

Yeah. :)

Anyway, I disagree that belief implies evidence. It can be based on faith, or on fabricated evidence, circumstancial evidence, imaginary evidence... you're kind of saying belief exists, and there must be some reason for it to exist. But this is a non sequitur and it kind of begs the question. It (belief, life, the universe) may be accidental.

What I can agree with you is that those who have any belief, often reference that belief to what they consider to be valid evidence. But then, we humans are very good at justifying ourselves, often post facto, and on very shaky foundations. Wired to believe, so to speak. Look no farther than a lot of folks in the thread who clearly believe god does not exist yet refuse to admit how every single logical argument they use against believers can be turned around on their own belief.

Because they only know about here from hearsay. In reality she was pretty evil. She was in bed with the worst dictators like Pinochet, then used the blood money to fund expansion of her death cult, all while her own poor people died without medical care in her deathmotels.

Yeah! So by your definition your guy is not a god because he is contingent on team jamotide? Wow, usually christians are more stubborn than this!

Maybe, who really knows.
Why? This is a baseless assumption.
So what, what does this have to do with anything? And what horrible sentence structure, I hope some school kid wrote this?

Christopher Hitcfhens did the world a favor for exposing what a despicable hag Mother Teresa really was. I miss that man.

Me too very much.