Agnostics “R” Us...

[tpj]

Did you have a lot of priests molesting mainly boys in Australia too? I think someone said 5% of priests are homosexual. I don't know of anyone personally that was molested, but it made the news and there were a number of lawsuits.

https://archive.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories5/022804_victims.htm

https://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/females_complicates_issue.htm

I hate it when someone's sexuality is brought up. A paedophile is a paedophile, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

 

[just1morething]

I hate it when someone's sexuality is brought up. A paedophile is a paedophile, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

You brought up the priests raping, not me. I never really got worked up even though I grew up Catholic. I was just curious on the facts is all. I certainly don't defend the priests. Time for me to exit these divisive threads.

 

[tpj]

You brought up the priests raping, not me. I never really got worked up even though I grew up Catholic. I was just curious on the facts is all. I certainly don't defend the priests. Time for me to exit these divisive threads.

I know what you mean about these "divisive threads". I try and stay out of them but seem to get drawn in.

My point was about religious hypocrisy and people using religion to hide behind and to justify their evil or hatred or basically, anything they want to justify.

 

[Stuart-T]

Hi Jazzer. Good to see you. As a non-fundamentalist believer, I agree with you. Hell is not something the church pushed so much until medieval times. Yes, it's there in the Gospels, but perhaps Jesus has been misrepresented.

The word used by Jesus and translated as hell was "Gehenna", which is a physical place that his audience at the time would have recognised - you can see it on maps of the time. It's the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem, where fires in the blistering heat were common, and even dead bodies were thrown if the poor unfortunate couldn't afford a burial. Hence "the worms, and the fires that never go out".

Well then you will need to explain Matthew 25:31-46 in which Jesus separates out goats from sheep.

Here is a quotation:

"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. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I 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.'

"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?'

"He will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."​

It's not so easy to claim that at the centre of Christianity there is not this doctrine of the righteous (the sheep) going to heaven and the cursed (goats) going to eternal punishment.

And frankly - if there is no such division based on deeds and faith - I see no use in Christianity since there is no hell for me to fear.

For so many people, saying you believe in God doesn't mean a thing. I'm sure all those child raping priests believe in God too.

Indeed. Since they repent truly after each horrific act - and get the slate wiped clean - for their next heinous act.

They can always do a grand repentance at death and do their time in purgatory.

One way to look at the God question is from something I read somewhere, and I like it. It went like this: it's not that there is a god or there isn't a god. It's that there is no, no god. The "is or isn't" is duality, but that's created by humans, and it's not how the universe/reality works. Things just are. In a universe/reality where there is no, no god, the "is or isn't" trap doesn't exist. We're out of the duality hell path. And duality is often a form of hell.

What does it mean that there is no, no god?

If you are negating "no god" - it leaves us with - "god"

So clarify the claim - then demonstrate the truth of that claim.

 

[Jazzer]

As a confirmed atheist, and devotee of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Charles Darwin, I find religious debate exhilarating - but I wonder if members of the religious community find it hard to take.

In a sense, I have nothing to lose - but they have a strong commitment to their faith. I don't wish to upset anybody, but no concept should be declared out of bounds.

Dave x
Jazzer

 

[Henry Orlando FL]

Hi @Henry Orlando FL -- I always enjoy your "musings". I might just run something by you to see what your take on it is. I'm very much into energy medicine of all kinds, and have watched a lot of YouTube videos on it. Two of my favorite "authors" are Donna Eden and Prune Harris.

If a person spends much time looking into their therapeutic approach to healing, they would discover that both of them can see energetic fields such as auras, meridians, chakras, etc. To most people, that would probably sound ridiculous, especially since much of it can't be "scientifically proven".

But does that mean Donna Eden and Prune Harris can't "prove things for themselves" that other people are unable to? To extend that further, can some people prove "there is a God to themselves, but others can't. We're all so individual, so who's to say?

I once read some literature on "Soul Travel", a somewhat esoteric term. In the discussion on it, a "spiritual mentor" said that everybody on this planet has the ability to Soul Travel, but they just don't realize that have it. He mentioned another planet in another Universe with billions of people on it, and everybody knew how to Soul Travel, because they were all born in a culture where everybody realized it was not only possible, but normal.

I guess what I'm trying to say regarding what somebody can prove to themselves is; "Who's to say?" My best guess is that a LOT of people have been able to prove a LOT of things for themselves, but they keep quiet about it lest they end up in a mental institution. Don't want to brush up too much against the "norms" of any given culture.

Take care Henry!

Thanks for the acknowledgement @Lane. Your post reminded me of taking a course on Medical Anthropology. This written by ChatGPT for example of a main principle in Medical Anthropology:

"Illness is a social and cultural construct: Medical anthropologists have shown that illness is not only a biological phenomenon but also a social and cultural construct. Cultural beliefs and practices can influence the way people experience and interpret illness, as well as their decisions about seeking and receiving medical care."​

One thing I took away from the course was people get cured of diseases most often when the belief system of the healer is congruent with the belief systems of the patient. Energy medicine and more edgy things (think psychedelics in psychotherapy) or esoteric things (shamanism) are becoming a more acceptable approach to people.

Your post also reminded me of the era in my life when I was reading everything I could on psychic phenomena as evidenced in channeled material. Mostly I read Edgar Cayce and Seth (an energy essence personality channeled by Jane Roberts). It certainly was not scientific to be sure and it was rich with things to consider.

Lastly I was reminded of what Donald Rumsfeld (USA Secretary of Defense in the second Iraq War era under the second President Bush) a follows:

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."​

The longer I live the more I am sure I sure don't know and there are a lot of unknown unknowns in the world to be discovered and sorted out.

 

[just1morething]

As a confirmed atheist

I thought you were agnostic, not atheist? Your thread was about agnostics. Did you change your beliefs recently?

 

[Jazzer]

I thought you were agnostic, not atheist? Your thread was about agnostics. Did you change your beliefs recently?

Good question just1morething.

I'm probably 99% atheist / 1% uncertain.

Is an agnostic a fence sitter?

My conviction is that there is no god. I can see no evidence for a god. Obviously there can be no proof, but a smidgeon of evidence wouldn't go amiss.

I firmly believe that the primary determinant towards a religious faith is 'fear.'

 

[Stuart-T]

As a confirmed atheist, and devotee of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Charles Darwin, I find religious debate exhilarating - but I wonder if members of the religious community find it hard to take.

In a sense, I have nothing to lose - but they have a strong commitment to their faith. I don't wish to upset anybody, but no concept should be declared out of bounds.

Dave x
Jazzer

You may think you have nothing to lose - however:

You may encounter an argument for the existence of a god which threatens your world view as an atheist.

If you then submit to theism - you will have lost the freedom from divine authority and retribution you previously imagined you had (depending on which model of theism you are persuaded to accept).

Personally I doubt whether an actual argument could persuade me to be a theist - it would take actual evidence - or some experience of a kind which convinces me there is a god. The philosophical arguments have no clear consensus of soundness among philosophers - so they can be dismissed en masse. It is a waste of time even rehashing them.

I hate it when someone's sexuality is brought up. A paedophile is a paedophile, regardless of whether they are straight or gay.

It is not relevant to the truth of the religious claims. With paedophiles' intent of indulging their twisted aims, they may recognise that an ecclesiastical occupation would provide them with the trust and access to young people which they want.

I was reading a biography on Mozart recently. His father was desperate to keep him out of the holy orders as he did not approve of the practice of the priests sending for young orphans on the pretence of spiritual instruction when in fact they were being used as sexual play things - something which was common and well known at the time but which was conveniently overlooked.

But none of this means Christianity is not true, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[tpj]

But none of this means Christianity is not true, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

I understand that @Stuart-T.

But since it was brought up, I thought it was important to mention.

 

[Jazzer]

You may think you have nothing to lose - however:

You may encounter an argument for the existence of a god which threatens your world view as an atheist.

If you then submit to theism - you will have lost the freedom from divine authority and retribution you previously imagined you had (depending on which model of theism you are persuaded to accept).

Personally I doubt whether an actual argument could persuade me to be a theist - it would take actual evidence - or some experience of a kind which convinces me there is a god. The philosophical arguments have no clear consensus of soundness among philosophers - so they can be dismissed en masse. It is a waste of time even rehashing them.

It is not relevant to the truth of the religious claims. With paedophiles' intent of indulging their twisted aims, they may recognise that an ecclesiastical occupation would provide them with the trust and access to young people which they want.

I was reading a biography on Mozart recently. His father was desperate to keep him out of the holy orders as he did not approve of the practice of the priests sending for young orphans on the pretence of spiritual instruction when in fact they were being used as sexual play things - something which was common and well known at the time but which was conveniently overlooked.

But none of this means Christianity is not true, so it is irrelevant to the discussion.

'Submit to theism?'

Not that likely: I'm 80 years old, with advancing Parkinson's disease - so I must be near the end of the road.

I was brought up in the Salvation Army until age 18. At about the age of 10 years, the colour sargeant (flag bearer on the march) offered to give me cornet lessons at his house. He attempted to sexually abuse me.

 

[Mister Muso]

Well then you will need to explain Matthew 25:31-46 in which Jesus separates out goats from sheep.

I can't account for that passage in terms of the Gehenna references. I can't account for everything in the Bible. This parable seems to be something of an outlier. Perhaps it was a later addition and it was never originally meant like that? I know, you'll say I am fabricating events to suit my narrative, and if we can't trust all of the Bible, we can't trust any of it. And that would be your prerogative. I've never been a fundamentalist, an "every word of the Bible is true" believer. Those folks scare me. And some atheists are equally fundamentalist in how they cling to their beliefs too.

And frankly - if there is no such division based on deeds and faith - I see no use in Christianity since there is no hell for me to fear.

Honestly, it was not fear of hell that brought me to faith, but it was meeting Christian believers my own age, and noticing how their lives seemed to be much more joyful and purposeful than other people around. I wanted some of that, and I couldn't explain it away.

As a confirmed atheist, and devotee of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Charles Darwin...

Have you seen the debate on YouTube with Hitchens, Stephen Fry, and two rather useless Christian debaters? I actually thought Stephen Fry gave the most compelling responses in that one.

And Professor Brian Cox is always interesting, and is very careful and precise in giving his reasons for lack of belief in a deity, at the same time being honest about the questions that it is not the role of science to answer.

 

[just1morething]

I'm probably 99% atheist / 1% uncertain.

You sound sort of like Jim Carrey.

 

[Mister Muso]

I was brought up in the Salvation Army until age 18. At about the age of 10 years, the colour sargeant (flag bearer on the march) offered to give me cornet lessons at his house. He attempted to sexually abuse me.

I can well understand why that would make you want nothing to do with the church. If there is a hell after death (and I'm not sure there is), then it's for people like him, not for you or me.

 

[Henry Orlando FL]

I can't account for that passage in terms of the Gehenna references. I can't account for everything in the Bible. This parable seems to be something of an outlier. Perhaps it was a later addition and it was never originally meant like that? I know, you'll say I am fabricating events to suit my narrative, and if we can't trust all of the Bible, we can't trust any of it. And that would be your prerogative. I've never been a fundamentalist, an "every word of the Bible is true" believer. Those folks scare me. And some atheists are equally fundamentalist in how they cling to their beliefs too.

Honestly, it was not fear of hell that brought me to faith, but it was meeting Christian believers my own age, and noticing how their lives seemed to be much more joyful and purposeful than other people around. I wanted some of that, and I couldn't explain it away.

Have you seen the debate on YouTube with Hitchens, Stephen Fry, and two rather useless Christian debaters? I actually thought Stephen Fry gave the most compelling responses in that one.

And Professor Brian Cox is always interesting, and is very careful and precise in giving his reasons for lack of belief in a deity, at the same time being honest about the questions that it is not the role of science to answer.

The Bible seems very worthless to me as the basis for evidence of anything about the divinity of Jesus or the basis for religious belief. It just seems so compromised in too many ways. More like a work of fiction or at best a novel.

Thanks for the Brian Cox video. All well said I thought by all parties. I do think it is the role of science to work on finding an answer to questions that will point to if there is a God or not as the origins of the universe might. I do think it is fine for scientists to say there is so far no evidence one way or the other on God. I think it is really great for philosophers, archeologists, historians, theology, psychology, etc. (soft sciences maybe fits here) to delve into is there a God, how religions come to be, how people come to hold their various religious beliefs or not, etc.

Indeed, in the USA the Christian Nationalists (many of whom played key roles in the January 6th insurrection at the USA Capitol) are the largest home grown threat now who are supported at least intellectually and politically by a large segment of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist of our country. Authoritarians in the USA make up, depending on which study, from 18% to 40% of the USA public. The largest segment of the authoritarians in the USA are Christian. Thus it is a very real frightening issue in the USA and very real in our lives given they pass laws at the state level in "red states" (meaning captured by one party rule of the Republicans which is 25 of the 50) that are frankly theocratic. These laws limit free speech like in Florida teachers in our government funded schools are not allowed to talk about LGBTQ issues or history, anything related to some areas of race relations/history and now they are looking to pass a law banning abortion over 6 weeks with no exceptions for rape or incest unless a police report is filed. Private and religious schools in Florida, funded by state payments to parents to pay for the private schooling the parent picks to send the child to, have zero standards, curriculum or rules they must follow.

End rant.

 

[Jazzer]

Let me explain my position.

Do you remember how exam papers would ask - 'give the reasons for your answer.'

If a concept defies the bounds of probability, I'm sceptical.

If it defies logic, physiology, physics, medicine, chemistry, etc., I'm no longer sceptical.

 

[Stuart-T]

I can't account for that passage in terms of the Gehenna references. I can't account for everything in the Bible. This parable seems to be something of an outlier.

It is not an outlier - Jesus references hell several times in the gospel and interestingly he alone references hell. I am prepared to send you verses if you wish, though I suspect it is not that big an issue for you. The word used for hell is the place where they sent all the rubbish and even dead bodies to be burned etc - seems like a good enough metaphor for an actual hell as many have come to understand it.

you'll say I am fabricating events to suit my narrative

No - others have maybe fabricated events and you are interpreting to suit your idea of what is good. Which is why so many Christians no longer believe in a literal hell where the non believers go to suffer for eternity. It just doesn't seem right! Yet that seems to be what Jesus does preach. St. Paul also references hell as a real place.

and if we can't trust all of the Bible, we can't trust any of it. And that would be your prerogative.

That is not my position. Much of what is in the Bible is true and verifiable. That which is unverifiable, I do not have an issue with accepting it is true - except for those claims which do not comport with reality, the supernatural and miracle claims for example and of course the resurrection.

And some atheists are equally fundamentalist in how they cling to their beliefs too.

Which atheists? And which in particular beliefs do they cling to? As an atheist - I am curious to know your answer.

Honestly, it was not fear of hell that brought me to faith, but it was meeting Christian believers my own age,

Yes - a ready made community of peers which accepts you with open arms is a wonderful feeling. And we know that people who feel included and appreciated generally do better than those who are isolated and feel rejected. The same is true for other communities - Islam - Hindus - various sects - Scientology (e.g., Tom Cruise). Does that mean all those religions are true?

and noticing how their lives seemed to be much more joyful and purposeful than other people around

In what way were their lives more purposeful?

I wanted some of that, and I couldn't explain it away.

Yes, I would want some of that too - though all the congregations where I live are like average age 80 and half have walking sticks. You say you could not explain it away - what is there to explain? If this is your reason for belief - it's not a solid one. We should not accept claims because we can't think of any other explanation for something - though this is how many Theists arrive at belief in God (I can't think how the first self replicating cell emerged so I will go with the God hypothesis. I can't think where a God emerged from either but let's just say the God always existed).

Have you seen the debate on YouTube with Hitchens, Stephen Fry, and two rather useless Christian debaters? I actually thought Stephen Fry gave the most compelling responses in that one.

No but I will take a look.

And Professor Brian Cox is always interesting, and is very careful and precise in giving his reasons for lack of belief in a deity, at the same time being honest about the questions that it is not the role of science to answer.

It's not the role of any discipline to invent answers and not provide sound evidence.

 

[Jazzer]

My 18 years of attempted Christian indoctrination was an abject failure.

Guess I was just lucky.

 

[GregCA]

He makes an interesting argument at 1:45.

 

[Stuart-T]

Let me explain my position.

Do you remember how exam papers would ask - 'give the reasons for your answer.'

If a concept defies the bounds of probability, I'm sceptical.

If it defies logic, physiology, physics, medicine, chemistry, etc., I'm no longer sceptical.

Anti COVID-19 vax arguments defy logic, physiology, medicine, chemistry etc.

 

[Henry Orlando FL]

'Submit to theism?'

Not that likely: I'm 80 years old, with advancing Parkinson's disease - so I must be near the end of the road.

I was brought up in the Salvation Army until age 18. At about the age of 10 years, the colour sargeant (flag bearer on the march) offered to give me cornet lessons at his house. He attempted to sexually abuse me.

I was brought up Catholic. I was also an alter boy going to a Catholic School. No approaches by Priests though. My mother, very Catholic, once asked me why none of her 3 children were Catholic. I said, well, you taught us to read widely and think critically. It is real hard to be a Catholic if you do that. I am right behind you in the line at age 75. Growing old is not for wimps to be sure.

 

[ZFire]

Yes, conservatives tend to believe in God and in the USA anyway to be Christians. I have no problem with that other than when the Christian right (mostly Evangelicals or conservative Catholics) wants everyone to live by their rules much like a theocracy.

Thomas Jefferson said it best in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists—"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State".

The same is true for other communities - Islam - Hindus - various sects - Scientology (e.g., Tom Cruise). Does that mean all those religions are true?

One thing I've also noticed is that it's very uncomfortable for a person of any faith to start comparing what they believe to what millions of others believe because it starts to raise difficult and very obvious questions. Why are you right, and they wrong? Why is Christianity (2000 years old) true and something like Hinduism (4000+ years old) false? Each has millions of followers and worshippers. Each have holy books. Each have just as much evidence for its scripture as the other. Each has creation myths, god figures, morality plays, parables, codes of conduct, and tenets. Since the Gods of numerous religions differ widely in their descriptions and attributes, it means only one of these religions can be right about God. So I ask once again, who's right here? But I think you already know the answer to this. I still have not found a convincing theological explanation for the multiplicity of religions in our world yet.

but I wonder if members of the religious community find it hard to take.

There are members on this site who likely seek out their faith more than ever now. If it can bring them comfort, happiness, and a peace of mind on a personal level while they go through difficult ordeals (tinnitus) in life, then more power to them. Who am I to crap on that? I'll never denigrate anyone for believing in a religion if it makes them feel happy. If they find this thread harsh, I think it's best they avoid it then.

I don't know why, but today I felt like talking about religion which is something I rarely do here. Boredom perhaps...

 

[Stuart-T]

Since the Gods of numerous religions differ widely in their descriptions and attributes, it means only one of these religions can be right about God.

It does not mean that. It could be that all the religions are false and there is no god. Or there is a god - and none of the religions are correct about god.

They can't all be right - but they could all be wrong.

 

[Jazzer]

Religions are the...

...of life.

 

[Lane]

They can't all be right - but they could all be wrong.

Bingo--on the wrong part! My take is every person is in essence their own religion, which shows itself to the world in how they lead their lives. I remember looking around at the congregation one morning during church service as a grade schooler, and came to the conclusion that even though everybody in the church were "Lutherans", they in fact all had differing beliefs about God and existence. I still believe that.

Most of the members seemed to be honest and sincere people, and seemed to humbly accept the "wisdom" that was being offered to them by the pastor (I couldn't stand those sermons myself). The pastor on the other hand always struck me as "insisting" on his own "rightness", and came across as arrogant. His "rightness" seemed to culminate in his insistence that anybody who was not Lutheran was destined for hell and damnation (can you believe it?).

I always thought the congregation was ahead of the pastor in a spiritual sense. They for the most part seemed to consider religion as somewhat of a social event mixed with a certain sense of obligation to perhaps cover some bases on that hellfire and damnation prospect. And for some of them, much, much more. The pastor on the other hand was so full of his "rightness", he once refused to hold a memorial service for a fairly young adolescent boy who had committed the "unpardonable sin" of suicide.

Does God exist? It seems pretty apparent nobody can prove or disprove it to someone else (nor should they try in my opinion). Can people prove it to themselves? It depends on what criteria they use. The beauty of it is everybody gets to choose their own criteria! For me, I see the existence of any "God" when I see acts of kinds of kindness by people for one another, acts of love, acts of service, acts of deep caring and appreciation.

Is their an "old man in the sky" (Christian God) somewhere behind these kinds of acts? I don't think so. Is there an infinite ocean of love somewhere in the Universe just waiting to be expressed in our everyday lives? I think people who "ponder" and live life along these lines are likely to be the ones who've learned a great deal about love (and perhaps God?) during their time on this earth. I suspect most people experience "God" in their lives on a regular basis and aren't even aware of it. But that's just my take.

 

[SarahMLFlemmer]

My conviction is that there is no god. I can see no evidence for a god. Obviously there can be no proof, but a smidgeon of evidence wouldn't go amiss.

I would like to challenge that belief. Hi! My name is Sarah by the way.

Thomas Jefferson said it best in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists—"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State".

One thing I've also noticed is that it's very uncomfortable for a person of any faith to start comparing what they believe to what millions of others believe because it starts to raise difficult and very obvious questions. Why are you right, and they wrong? Why is Christianity (2000 years old) true and something like Hinduism (4000+ years old) false? Each has millions of followers and worshippers. Each have holy books. Each have just as much evidence for its scripture as the other. Each has creation myths, god figures, morality plays, parables, codes of conduct, and tenets. Since the Gods of numerous religions differ widely in their descriptions and attributes, it means only one of these religions can be right about God. So I ask once again, who's right here? But I think you already know the answer to this. I still have not found a convincing theological explanation for the multiplicity of religions in our world yet.

There are members on this site who likely seek out their faith more than ever now. If it can bring them comfort, happiness, and a peace of mind on a personal level while they go through difficult ordeals (tinnitus) in life, then more power to them. Who am I to crap on that? I'll never denigrate anyone for believing in a religion if it makes them feel happy. If they find this thread harsh, I think it's best they avoid it then.

I don't know why, but today I felt like talking about religion which is something I rarely do here. Boredom perhaps...

All of these guys are in the grave, but Christ's grave is empty! <3

 

[Stuart-T]

For me, I see the existence of any "God" when I see acts of kinds of kindness by people for one another, acts of love, acts of service, acts of deep caring and appreciation.

If you are saying that God is acts kindness and love, acts of service, acts of deep caring and appreciation. Well those do all exist continually all of the time - from my own experience of myself and observations. If that is God - I'm right with you, I am a theist then by your understanding of God. I am not sure what adding the God label does for all of those very human acts - but ok if it helps in any way, why not use it.

All of these guys are in the grave, but Christ's grave is empty! <3

Where is Christ's grave? And how do you know it is empty?

Religions are the...

View attachment 53946

...of life.

A red herring I assume is what you mean - though that fish is not a herring.

 

[Henry Orlando FL]

I would like to challenge that belief. Hi! My name is Sarah by the way.

All of these guys are in the grave, but Christ's grave is empty! <3

Welcome Sarah. Brave of you he says with a smile. Is that assertion your sole basis for believing there is a God? I am into the idea of if one doesn't know both sides of the argument, one has not thought it through enough.

To get a refutation of the "Jesus resurrection" story see here:

Rebuffing and Rejecting the Resurrection: An Explanation of Cavin and Colombetti's Article

 

[Jazzer]

 

[Stuart-T]

As for evolution, both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England state that Christianity and the theory of evolution are compatible and they accept the scientific findings.

It is a non-issue for most denominations.

As for resurrection:

The earliest manuscripts of Mark have no appearance of the risen Jesus. Verses were later added. And both Luke and Matthew largely draw upon and expand upon Mark. In any case, the gospels are not reliable records of history. They are theological texts composed with a theological purpose - the conversion of people to Christianity.