I also think its fair to point out that in 1 Chronicles 15:3-6, Paul writes this:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

If we pin this in a similar timeframe as the Gospels being written or even right before, we see there was clearly a time that people could go and check the credibility of Jesus' resurrection with eye witnesses. And not just a couple; hundreds. This moment, right here shows that the Gospels, the Bible, Christianity could've easily been debunked if these eye witnesses were false or clearly lying. But thats not what happened. Why would we still be talking about a 2000+ year old religion if it was proven false this early in history? It just doesn't make sense other than the witnesses were credible and quite possibly saw an actual resurrection.

Thank you for presenting your case. I will be pleased to respond.

> First point: The authors of the Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitnesses. They were written anonymously. That's a huge barrier to the eyewitness claik right off the bat.

They don't have to claim it to be it. John explicitly claims it (Jn. 1.14; 21.24).

That the Gospels were anonymous is part of the genre. Just as journalists don't put their own names in their news articles, neither did Gospel writers. But since their works were copied and spread, it is notable that every copy that has a name on it and every testimony from the ancients about who the writers are is both unanimous and consistent: Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn. There are no conflicting or competing theories, which is just about impossible to explain unless the authors were known and unanimously recognized. That's a huge evidence of confirmable authorship right off the bat.

> The gospels were written about 35+ years after Jesus death.

35 years is nothing. In our culture, that's back to Ronald Reagan, Madonna, and the murder of John Lennon. We can easily get at information and even eyewitnesses of those events.

> Mark was written, at the earliest, in 67 AD.

Estimates of Mark range from the 50s to the 70s, with most scholars in the 60s. I happen to think the evidence is considerable for a late 50s writing. What we can't say for certain is that it "was written, at the earliest, in 67 AD." There is a case to be made for it to have been earlier.

> Matthew was likely in the 70's.

There is no certainty to this. Evidence is stronger for Matthew to have been written in the early 60s, or perhaps mid-60s.

> Luke and John were 80+

Luke was probably also in the early 60s, since Acts has plenty of evidence that it was in the early 60s and Luke preceded it. John is possibly in the 80s.

> It is unlikely the disciples would have been literate, especially in Greek.

I disagree. 1st-c. Palestine was a multi-lingual region: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Since Matthew and John were both businessmen north of Galilee, a considerable slice of their business would come from Gentiles. Matthew would have had to interact with Romans, since he was a tax collector. John, as a fisherman, would also do business with quite a few Gentiles since Galilee was a region of mixed ethnicity and population. In any case, the use of amanuenses was common, so that's not a problem either.

> It is unlikely they knew how to write.

Knowing the Jewish culture of training every boy to read the Torah, all males were taught to read and write. The Septuagint was written in Greek, and the Torah in Hebrew, so it is likely that they knew how to read and write in multiple languages. I can provide for you a list of archaeological evidences that the population of Palestine was largely literate, if you would like to see it.

> Greek wasn't exactly a common language in the area, that would have been Aramaic.

Greek was common enough in the area. The sign Pilate wrote to go on the cross was in three languages for passersby in Jerusalem: Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Greek was the common dialect of the empire.

There is no mention of an interpreter when Jesus spoke to Pilate. Since there's no reason to think that Pilate, a Roman, would speak Aramaic, Jesus most likely spoke to him in Greek or Latin. Since Jesus, being a common worker from Galilee, knew at least one of those languages, very plausibly his disciples did, too.

> One really big knock against Mark is that he has a remarkably poor understanding of the geology of the region for someone who supposedly lived there and traveled with Jesus.

Mark's alleged misunderstandings of geography are matters of interpretation and neither egregious or "remarkably poor." He mentions Tyre and Sidon in reverse order from what is normal, but who's to say this is not the route Jesus took? No one, actually. It's possible.

> Jesus in the Garden. He was supposedly alone, yet we get narration as if one of the disciples was right there next to him.

Every account has him with his three disciples (Mt. 26.36; Mk. 14.32; Lk. 22.39; Jn. 18.1). You're mistaken that Jesus was supposedly alone.

> Same for Jesus being tempted in the deserr by Satan.

Correct. There could not have been witnesses to this. What's so far fetch about thinking Jesus told his disciples about it?

> The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized, they flat contradict one another.

I have harmonized them. There is no contradiction. But you'd have to be specific for me to comment more specifically.

> they would have known Judas personally. This is again an event that differs pretty wildly between Matthew and Luke.

What event? I know of no problem between Matthew and Luke. You'll have to be more specific.

> We actually do have one source who spoke first hand to eyewitnesses: Paul

Luke also spoke with eyewitnesses (Lk. 1.1-4). John was an eyewitness, as previously noted. But because Matthew and Mark don't mention their sources doesn't mean they were not. Matthew, for instance, contains 5 lengthy speeches that would be known by an eyewitness. Mark's family were believers and were prominent in the church in Jerusalem. Mark may have been an eyewitness as well. In addition, external evidence tells us that Mark got much of his information from Peter, who was also an eyewitness. The Gospels are flowing with eyewitness accounts.

> He actually downplays his meetings with members of the 12 because it ended in disagreement

Correct, but this is neither a problem nor a defeater.

> Paul envisioned a less Jewish future for Christianity than did James and Peter.

Correct, but this is not a problem or defeater either.

> He doesn't speak much else about the 12 nor relay their accounts of Jesus.

Correct. His purposes in writing are different, and he was almost always writing to Gentile audiences.

> Paul also seems to be rather unaware of the existence of Gospels.

Correct. Paul's letters were written in the 50s. Mark was probably written in the late 50s, Matthew and Luke in the early 60s, and John later. So it's no surprise that Paul was unaware of the existence of the Gospels; they most likely didn't exist yet.

> and in fact copy Mark word-for -word in many places.

Actually, it is seldom word-for-word. The accounts are similar, but only occasionally word-for-word. That's not a problem. Even our modern news agencies at times use word-for-word what another news agency says. That doesn't discredit the truth of the report.

> Something like 70% of Matthew and Luke was taken from Mark.

This is actually untrue. I actually looked this up a few months ago, researching the same accusation. It must be fodder on the Internet, but it's untrue. Here's the results of my research:

"I couldn't get a reliable figure of how much of Matthew was from Mark off the Internet. I started reading through, comparing the two. Eighteen verses of Mark 1 (out of 45) are in Matthew. Twenty-four (of 28) verses of Mark 2 are in Matthew. Twenty-five (of 35) of Mark 3. The two accounts are quite different, though, I noticed when I read them in parallel. Though it was the same thought, it was rarely the same words. Sometimes I had a hard time figuring out if the verse from Mark was actually in Matthew, they were worded so differently. I had to make some judgment calls.

"I would say that though much of Mark is in Matthew (Internet sources said in the vicinity of 90%), it's untrue that a large percentage of Matthew is from Mark. If it's true that 600 verses of Mark are in Matthew (I have my doubts, but let's just go with that), that means 56% of Matthew is also in Mark, leaving 44% of Matthew unique from Mark. I would not consider that 'a very large percentage...taken word for word.' It's not even close to word for word, and 44% of Matthew is unique from Mark."

> This means that authority and legitimacy MATTERED to the Authors of the Gospel

Correct. It really did.

> Leaving out that they were members of the 12 would make no semse at all.

Neither Matthew nor John leave out that they were members of the 12. Mark and Luke never claim to be.

> When you put all this together, it is very unlikely that any of the gospels, let alone 2 or 3 of them, were written by Eyewitnesses.

Thank you for responding to me and giving your case, as I requested. You're one of the few ever to do this. You can tell from my responses that I disagree, but that's to be expected. It's my assessment that the evidence is far stronger supporting traditional authorship than against it. I think the evidence is considerable that the authors were Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn, and that two of them were eyewitnesses, Mark may have been a partial eyewitness in addition to getting his information from a bona fide eyewitness, Peter. Luke was a scholar, historian, and researcher, and got his information from eyewitnesses.

All four Gospels were acclaimed as authentic from the beginning by the early Church, and there is unanimous attestation of the authors as Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn—an absolutely incredible event if they were not truly by those authors.

I have deliberately tried to be brief, so each of my responses really deserves more complete discussion. I tried to keep it brief both to be considerate and because of the limitations of the forum. But we further discuss any of these pieces that you may wish.

First point: The authors of the Gospels don't even claim to be eyewitnesses. They were written anonymously. That's a huge barrier to the eyewitness claik right off the bat.

Second: The gospels were written about 35+ years after Jesus death. Mark was written, at the earliest, in 67 AD. That's not an unreasonable amount of time for an eyewitness to live. Matthew was likely in the 70's. Luke and John were 80+, so we're running into lifespan considerations here. This is the point where most eyewitnesses would be dead. Being conservative, Mark and Matthew have a decent shot for eyewitness testimony soley based in age, but Luke and particularly John likely wouldn't have been.

Third: It is unlikely the disciples would have been literate, especially in Greek. Jesus operated in a backwater province of Galilee and his disciples were mostly peasants/fishermen. It is unlikely they knew how to write. Matthew, by tradition, is a tax collector, so its possible he could have been literate. However, the likelihood of these individuals knowing Koigne Greek is even smaller. Greek wasn't exactly a common language in the area, that would have been Aramaic.

Fourth: Narrative clues and disagreements. One really big knock against Mark is that he has a remarkably poor understanding of the geology of the region for someone who supposedly lived there and traveled with Jesus. He incorrectly identifies roads and makes mistakes regarding the placement of cities and lakes. We also have instances in the gospels were events occur where there realistically couldn't have been witnesses. For instance, Jesus in the Garden. He was supposedly alone, yet we get narration as if one of the disciples was right there next to him. Same for Jesus being tempted in the deserr by Satan. There's also disagreements between the gospels. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke cannot be harmonized, they flat contradict one another. That means at least one of Matther and Luke are mistaken, which suggests one of them wasn't an eyewitnesses or spoke to eyewitnesses. Would Jesus tell his disciples two different birth stories? Why else is there disagreement here?

The same thing happens regarding Judas. If the authors WERE eyewitnesses, they would have known Judas personally. This is again an event that differs pretty wildly between Matthew and Luke. We can fairly safely come tonthe conclusion that at least one of these gospels was not in fact written by an eyewitness.

Fifth: We actually do have one source who spoke first hand to eyewitnesses: Paul. He actually downplays his meetings with members of the 12 because it ended in disagreement, and Paul envisioned a less Jewish future for Christianity than did James and Peter. He doesn't speak much else about the 12 nor relay their accounts of Jesus. Paul also seems to be rather unaware of the existence of Gospels. That would seem odd if the disciples had written accounts of Jesus.

Six: The authors of the Gospels were jockeying for positions of authority. Mark was the first, which is why Luke and Matthew are very careful not to directly contradict Mark, and in fact copy Mark word-for -word in many places. Something like 70% of Matthew and Luke was taken from Mark. This means that authority and legitimacy MATTERED to the Authors of the Gospel. If they were actually members of the 12, they would have had unquestionable Bona Fides. Leaving out that they were members of the 12 would make no semse at all.

When you put all this together, it is very unlikely that any of the gospels, let alone 2 or 3 of them, were written by Eyewitnesses.

> it has to be undeniable proof.

This is where I disagree. Very little in life has to be undeniable proof. Have you ever seen the movie "Zero Dark Thirty," about the assassination of Osama bin Laden? One notable quote is, "We don't deal in certainty; we deal in probability." It's the same in most of life. Knowledge is based on reliable interpretations oof coherent patterns, not in certainty. Formulating foolproof criteria for certainty and knowledge has not been successful. The ideal of certainty of knowledge is this: I must accept as true only those claims of which I am rationally certain, having no shadow of doubt. But if that’s true, how can I be certain of it? The ideal doesn’t even meet its own standard.

Instead we use abductive reasoning: inferring the most reasonable conclusion given the evidence at hand.

>> I go for evidence. Evidence is what it's all about. Faith, in the Bible, is based in evidence.
> No, no it's not. I've already stated in a previous comment below...

Yes, but your opinion doesn't regulate what the Bible says. You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on.

> but people back then were far, far less educated than we currently

Of course they were. This is obviously true.

> and consequently, much easily misled. People back then were prone to listening and believing the words of pretty much anybody,

This you are making up. You have no evidence that this is true. By your own statement, I would want undeniable evidence.

> Are they credible? How do we know these people weren't exaggerating or just outright lying?

Yes, they are credible. An examination of their work shows corroboratable historical, cultural, and geographical knowledge. There's every reason to believe in their credibility. I would be pleased to see your evidence that they are not. Do you have any evidence that they are outright lying? I have evidence they're not. So let's talk.

> There's no proof that can be verified today of their integrity.

Of course there is. Read what they wrote. It has logic, honesty, authenticity, accuracy, and integrity. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

> No, that's not credible. Like I said, how can we be sure of their integrity?

The burden is on you, then, to show evidence of why their integrity is questionable. Let's talk.

> how can we be sure of their integrity? All of this comes from the bible

No, it also comes from documentary and artifactual corroboration with what the biblical writers say.

> Because it's something they don't understand

You are missing the fact that many of those who saw Jesus were quite skeptical, reluctant to believe, and even full denial in the face of "evidence." You can't realistically accuse them of being gullible and superstitious. That's neither the historical record of that era nor the biblical account of people's reactions, which tells us that people were quite skeptical in that era.

> the moment something becomes altered, its credibility plummets.

Translation is always a fluid business. Assuming you took foreign languages in school, some words don't translate directly. It's always the case, and you know this. It doesn't question credibility when it's a matter of refinement, not disagreement.

> the telephone game

Yes, I'm familiar with the game, and this is NOTHING like the biblical situation. We can talk about this further if you wish.

> Christianity has undoubtedly been used for evil, as has Catholicism, or Islam, or the countless other religions out there.

So has politics, business, and education.

>>If He stopped all the evil and suffering...
> That's not true.

Yes it's true, but it warrants a much fuller discussion. There's not even room in the post for this discussion, let alone that one.

> people actively encourage you to donate

Churches are non-profits. They sell no material goods. They survive by donations. It's their only means of income. If you don't begrudge commercials on TV continually pestering to buy their product, neither should you begrudge the church trying to support their work.

> (I'm going to cut this off here because it's too long for one comment. I'll continue in a second reply)

Let's keep talking.

> I guess my first question is "What were you looking for?," and secondly "What would you consider to be an unexplainable act. I imagine anyone can come up with an "explanation" for anything. But let me know what you were after.

I've stated many times, but it has to be undeniable proof. Something that can't be explained with logic, something that can only be attributed to divine intervention.

> I go for evidence. Evidence is what it's all about. Faith, in the Bible, is based in evidence.

No, no it's not. I've already stated in a previous comment below, but people back then were far, far less educated than we currently are and consequently, much easily misled. People back then were prone to listening and believing the words of pretty much anybody, it's why so many people died to ridiculous "cures' quacks came up with. If a man said that he saw water turn to wine, you could be sure that at least one person would believe it.

> Over 40 different authors. (Question: Who wrote the bible?)

Are they credible? How do we know these people weren't exaggerating or just outright lying? There's no proof that can be verified today of their integrity. Here's just a modern world example, but if you know Youtube channels such as 5-Minute Crafts or the likes, you should also know to take their videos with a pinch an ocean full of salt. A lot of their content is false or a stretch of the truth.

> Two or 3 of the Gospels (Matthew, John, and maybe Mark) were written by eyewitnesses. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. So it's all quite credible.

No, that's not credible. Like I said, how can we be sure of their integrity? All of this comes from the bible, the same bible that I'm currently doubting. Times back then were a lot different from now. If the people of the past saw the technology of the present, they'd think it's magic, yes? Now why would they think it's magic? Because it's something they don't understand. Based off this principle, anyone from back then could misguide anyone else, so long as they were able to utilize human ignorance-- which, in fact, many did.

> The different versions are attempts by various scholars and publishing houses to make the Bible more understandable. It is no reflection on there being "one true God." So many people are determined to get the word of the "one true God" out to the public, there are repeated attempts at making it more accurate or more easily readable by people or subsets of people.

That. That is exactly the reply I was looking for because the moment something becomes altered, its credibility plummets. You are aware of the telephone game, yes? Have you seen how quickly the facts change as it passes from person to person? Things tend to become exaggerated and there are times when even the entire premise becomes a completely different thing.

> In reality, Christianity has been one of the most positive forces for good on the planet throughout history, if not THE MOST positive force for good. Because of Christianity we have schools, hospitals, laws, art, and science.

I won't deny that religion has some positive effects. I believe that in modern times, people who follow religion tend to be slightly better morally than those who do not. That, however, cannot be said for as a fact through all history, or even now. Christianity has undoubtedly been used for evil, as has Catholicism, or Islam, or the countless other religions out there.

> No religion is a clean slate. Nor is atheism.

That is exactly my point, the point that you semi-denied in your previous statement. Atheism isn't the point of this discussion. Atheists are humans, just as religious people are humans. They both greed, lust, and engage in violence in some way or another, at some point in their lives. Religion, however, is something atheists won't fight for—they've no need to because they don't believe in it. They might fight against it, but that's merely a clash of beliefs because one side believes and the other doesn't. The point is that religion just adds one more reason, one more cause for the violence, conflict, and death in this world.

> There are many reasons. If He stopped all the evil and suffering, we would cease to be human and life itself would grind to a halt. This is a much longer discussion, but free will along with cause-and-effect are necessary for life. If He were to stop it, He would erase life.

That's not true. Why would being absent of sin and suffering make us cease to be humans? How would that grind life to a halt? Free will is not essential for life, but it does promote quality of life. Cause-and-effect isn't technically "necessary" for life, it's just an undeniable consequence of life. However, cause-and-effect doesn't need life to exist. Does a rock need life to fall? No, it merely needs a force. A force is not a living being, yet it still causes the rock to fall.

> I'll agree that there are a lot of religious scams. But not nearly so many as Internet scams or telephone scams. The secularists have religion beat by a long shot.

This isn't a contest of "who has more scammers", it's just a point that the roots of many religions stem off human greed.

> I'll tell you what: I'll talk to you for free. Sure, I mean it. So don't hesitate to unload. (In relation to: Religion wants your f***ing money.)

Yes, you may be willing here because it's the internet. The same cannot be said at church. It's not a lie when I say that donations are almost required under the guise of offerings. People, even if they don't outright say it, will have some sort of prejudice about you if you don't. Maybe not all people, but enough to make you feel the pressure. If you've ever been in a church, you will understand. You feel an inner pressure to offer money, simply because the people around you are doing it.

I've been to many churches, the biggest which had a congregation of over 4,000 people and the smallest which had a mere 50 people. It was the same feeling every time. This is not mentioning that people actively encourage you to donate, whether it be family or friends who attend along with you. I was born and raised in the church life and my parents made it quite clear that offerings were necessary. 10% of our allowance each week was required to go into that damn basket. So much for "offering".

I'll make it clear now that this isn't all churches or all people. There may be some people who don't judge you on whether you donate or not. They are, however, a very small minority. A church cannot run without money and as such, they need money from their followers. How they use the money is up to them, but the moment it's used for personal gain, it's a strike against religion.

(I'm going to cut this off here because it's too long for one comment. I'll continue in a second reply)

I say it's true. Let's talk about it instead just exchange 1-syllable words.

The evidence is actually reasonable substantial for the authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. All of the external evidence we have points to them as authors. The internal evidence is interpretive and speculative, and I think it still gives more weight to traditional authorship than to other alternatives. But let's talk about it instead of just giving a single word.

How about if you show me your case against the traditional authors. We can start there.

> Two or 3 of the Gospels (Matthew, John, and maybe Mark) were written by eyewitnesses. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. So it's all quite credible.

False.

OK, so let's talk. There's obviously a lot of anger, so I'm not sure how much "discussion" there will actually be, but I'll bite on your fishing line.

> not ... once [in 17 years], did I see a single, unexplainable act that confirmed the existence of a higher being.

I guess my first question is "What were you looking for?," and secondly "What would you consider to be an unexplainable act. I imagine anyone can come up with an "explanation" for anything. But let me know what you were after.

> You religious nuts always proclaim "faith" above all and that's complete bullshit.

I go for evidence. Evidence is what it's all about. Faith, in the Bible, is based in evidence.

> Who wrote the bible?

Over 40 different authors.

> Where was the bible originated?

The Bible was written on 3 different continents, all in what we know as the Middle East, southern Europe (Italy and Turkey), and some in northern Africa. It was written over a span of 1300 years.

> How does the bible know exactly what Jesus said?

Two or 3 of the Gospels (Matthew, John, and maybe Mark) were written by eyewitnesses. Luke interviewed eyewitnesses. So it's all quite credible.

> Why are there so many different versions of the bible if your god is the "one true god"?

The different versions are attempts by various scholars and publishing houses to make the Bible more understandable. It is no reflection on there being "one true God." So many people are determined to get the word of the "one true God" out to the public, there are repeated attempts at making it more accurate or more easily readable by people or subsets of people.

> Do you just believe every stupid piece of crap you read?

Not even close.

> If anything, religion is everything that's wrong with this world.

In reality, Christianity has been one of the most positive forces for good on the planet throughout history, if not THE MOST positive force for good. Because of Christianity we have schools, hospitals, laws, art, and science.

> There is not a single other thing that has caused more violence, conflict, and death in this world than religion.

Sure there is. In the 20th century alone, the atheists Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mae Tse Tung were responsible for the murder and slaughter of at least 50 million people.

> You still think your religion is some clean slate?

No religion is a clean slate. Nor is atheism.

> If god is so real, why the f*** does he allow all the shit in the world to happen?

There are many reasons. If He stopped all the evil and suffering, we would cease to be human and life itself would grind to a halt. This is a much longer discussion, but free will along with cause-and-effect are necessary for life. If He were to stop it, He would erase life.

> Don't tell me, "It's the test of the devil."

I had no plans to tell you this. So I won't.

> Religion is the most obvious, yet widely accepted scam in the world.

I'll agree that there are a lot of religious scams. But not nearly so many as Internet scams or telephone scams. The secularists have religion beat by a long shot.

> Religion wants your f***ing money

I'll tell you what: I'll talk to you for free. Sure, I mean it. So don't hesitate to unload.

> "Believe in god or you go to hell."

Since Christianity is based in a love relationship with God, it's very logically and possibly true that if you don't want the love relationship you choose to be separated from the source of love, goodness, life, and peace. It's not "believe in God or you go to hell," but more like, "If you walk away from food, no wonder you're hungry." If you dissociate from God, you choose non-love, non-peace, non-goodness, and non-life. Your choice, but don't blame God for what you choose.

> If "faith" is the most important part of any religion, why the f*** does your "god" not step in and lend a hand?

God is quite active, but not often to the benefit of people who have nothing but anger and denigration for Him. If you bite the hand that feeds you, you can't rightly gripe about not having any food.

> A single, unexplainable act in front of the masses or the world can instantly bring millions upon millions of new believers

The Bible is quite clear that acts of wonder and miracles don't persuade angry, cynical unbelievers. It has to be a relationship; an awesome show doesn't cut it.

> If he's so powerful, why the f*** is he so gone?

He's not gone at all. I see His hand in my life just about every day.

> How about this? If your god is real, I will see it snow in my location tomorrow.

Nah, this isn't a dog-and-pony show. But I'll bet that even if it did snow in your location tomorrow, you'd find another explanation for it. That's how it goes. I've seen it a hundred times.

> You better pray your f***ing ass off to your "god".

Nope, not gonna do it. A relationship with God isn't about magic tricks.

> I have nothing on other people's religion... as long as it STAYS on their f***ing side.

We'll never stay on our side. Why would one begger keep a stash of food secret from his hungry friends? Why would someone who knows the solution to peace in the world keep it to himself? When we have the answer of life, it would be cruel to hold it in.

> Why the f*** should I devote myself to a god that hasn't devoted even a second's worth of time in my life to show his presence?

What kind of show of presence are you looking for, and what would you be satisfied with?

> why the f*** did you have to go and praise your damn beliefs when no one asked?

Because people need to hear what we have to say. You may not believe this, but there are a lot of angry, hopeless, frustrated people out there who need a good word that's true and that gives life. We'll never stay silent.

> undeniable proof of a higher being's existence

See, for some people nothing is "undeniable." Even if someone came back from the dead, they'd figure out some way to deny it. I've seen it a hundred times.

You're obviously more than angry, and I would guess your feelings have been hurt by religious people multiple times. But we can talk about whatever you want.

For those religious nuts out there, give me some straight f***ing answers.

I'm hoping I can get some discussion here (and hopefully some f***ing straight answers) so here I am. As for the section about me asking for snow, "god" already took a big fat F so ignore that. It's looking real damn cloudy today... but nice try "god". It's odd... whenever I question something specific on religion and ask for some undeniable proof, everyone goes f***ing silent. Either that or they give me some bullshit explanation, like I'm supposed to believe that as a sane individual. Let's see you do different.

I was a Christian for 17 years of my life and not once, not f***ing once, did I see a single, unexplainable act that confirmed the existence of a higher being. You religious nuts always proclaim "faith" above all and that's complete bullshit. Who wrote the bible? Where was the bible originated? How does the bible know exactly what Jesus said? Why are there so many different versions of the bible if your god is the "one true god"? Do you just believe every stupid piece of crap you read? That's the kind of vibe I get from all people who follow religion because you don't even know the credibility of the bible, yet you go around and say it's the "only truth in this world".

If anything, religion is everything that's wrong with this world. There is not a single other thing that has caused more violence, conflict, and death in this world than religion. Don't even give me the, "Well, our religion is different." No, no it's f***ing not. I can say this with absolute certainty that whatever the f*** religion you follow, it's caused some sort of human suffering in the past. Whether it be scams, torture, death, or prevention of human progression, it's probably done one or all of these. You still think your religion is some clean slate?

If god is so real, why the f*** does he allow all the shit in the world to happen? Don't tell me, "It's the test of the devil." That's bullshit. Religious idiots always have ways of blaming everything on something else. It's basically, "No, it's not my fault. The devil made me do it." F*** that. Take responsibility for your own incompetence and shortcomings—stop blaming fictional characters from your fictional beliefs.

Religion is the most obvious, yet widely accepted scam in the world. It's so f**ing obvious it's fake, but there are a lot of different people in the world—or rather, a lot of gullible people in the world. What are some basic characteristics of scams? The first point: it has to do with personal gain. You will never see a scam that doesn't have an underlying motive. Whether it be money or social prestige, it always has something it wants from you. Religion wants your f***ing money. Religion wants your time. Religion wants your respect and worship. 3 checkmarks already on a single point. f***ing fail. Second point: scams almost always talk about some "consequence" you will face if you don't listen to them. For money scams, they might say they need your credit card information to check if someone has been using your money behind your back, or they may want your social security number to verify identity theft. In both cases, the consequence would have a direct effect on your own life or well-being. Now, let's look at religion. "Believe in god or you go to hell." What does that sound like? A consequence. What are consequences for again? To persuade you to take their claims seriously by scaring you with possible repercussions if you don't. Why is religion and scams so f***ing similar? Because they are one and the same.

If "faith" is the most important part of any religion, why the f*** does your "god" not step in and lend a hand? One single f***ing act. A single, unexplainable act in front of the masses or the world can instantly bring millions upon millions of new believers... so why doesn't your god do it? If he's so powerful, why the f*** is he so gone?

How about this? If your god is real, I will see it snow in my location tomorrow. There has not been a single recorded case of snow in my area—but if your god is so powerful, let's see him make it happen. You better pray your f***ing ass off to your "god". A change of weather should be easy to someone who has created the entire world, right? I'm giving your god a chance here, a chance he had for 17 f***ing years of my life and didn't make good on. I'll be waiting.

PS: You may not believe this, but I have nothing on other people's religion... as long as it STAYS on their f***ing side. The moment people try to convince or persuade me that their religion is real, they've already f***ed up. If it's real, I'll see it in my own life. Is religion so f***ing weak that it requires people to spread word? Not the actual f***ing figurehead of the religion? What a lazy piece of shit. If he doesn't have the energy to show me that he's real himself, then he can go f*** right off-- real god or not. Why the f*** should I devote myself to a god that hasn't devoted even a second's worth of time in my life to show his presence? Think about that... now either f*** off or give me some answers.

I'm tired of seeing the same religious shit on every youtube video I click. I was watching a basketball tutorial and some asshole had to come along and ruin it by proclaiming their faith right then and there, for no f***ing reason. Why. I don't see Jesus b-balling in the bible, why the f*** did you have to go and praise your damn beliefs when no one asked?

PPS: If you have a video link to some sort of undeniable proof of a higher being's existence, a miracle or whatever-- as long as it can't be explained with logic or science, it will add credibility to what you say. That said, it has to be undeniable proof. I don't want to see more clips of stupid fake pastors "pushing" his believers with the "power of the holy spirit". Even a f***ing 3-year-old knows that's bullshit.