Whats more rationally believable: The tooth fairy or God/Jesus???

[insipiens]

The tooth fairy is much more likely. It's not believable, but not impossible either.

A guy who died 2000 years ago? He's just dead, and has long been so.

[squealpiggy]

The tooth fairy is much more likely. It's not believable, but not impossible either.

A guy who died 2000 years ago? He's just dead, and has long been so.

He died for YOU, you ungrateful bastard!

[insipiens]

He died for YOU, you ungrateful bastard!

He should have asked me first. I'd have told him not to bother.

[squealpiggy]

He should have asked me first. I'd have told him not to bother.

That's my feeling on it as well. Shoulda sent another flood, big guy.

[Cuauhtémoc1520]

This sucks because I can't answer point for point because I don't know how to isolate those quotes from you Squeely. Im computer challenged...

Some of those quotes weren't even directed towards you, you should take the time to see who i quoted and what I was responding to.

As far as Easter being the resurrection of Christ, I knew that and you took my words and twisted them, I was talking in generalities. Same when I said Jesus influenced millions, didn't mean at that specific time.

It seems you like to argue semantics and try to prove your point by finding these sort of things while ignoring the same issue I posed earlier. I was not the one who started this thread but I posed another question that went away from the traditional God vs No God argument that is tiring.

We get it, you don't believe there is a God. Oh and by the way, I never said I did or didn't either, the point I was making had nothing to do with that but again, you missed it.

If people want to believe or not believe that is their choice. I think it's dissrespectful to compair any of the religious icons like Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddah or any other to the tooth fairy or Santa Clause. The air of arogance that some poeople have is not only degrading and offensive to millions but it also is a bit silly considering non of us can prove that God does or does not exist, that's why that argument is so rediculous and old.

[Spare Moody]

Nothing at all. The problem arises when the ex cons attempt to intimidate other people into doing likewise, something that was a frequent offense of Manchester's Jesus Army.

now i don't know this Manchester Jesus Army so i'm not gonna stick up for em. but i will say that when ex cons preach to current cons it's EXTREMELY wise for them to bring up their past. no young punk in jail is going to give somebody the time of day when it comes to preaching. they will, however, hear em out when they see that the preacher was once just like them. they don't feel like they're the lone rebel.

now you may say that it's still shrewd sales tactics in converting people but most of these cons and druggies turn their lives around in an extremely positive manner once they become Christian. you're basically taking people who had no hope, no purpose, and no love for other people and turning all of that around. how can you complain about that???

Alcoholics Anonymous does not advocate the gathering of further converts. If the AA went proselytizing in pubs, bars and liquor stores I'd have a problem with them too.

but that wasn't your initial problem when the A/A example was brought up. your problem wasn't so much of the going out of your way to preach to strangers but it was the use of reminiscing on your past to glorify your present- of which all groups discussed here do at times.

but before you reply to this, lemme get something clear. when you initially said "the Jesus army" were you referring to Christians in general or this Manchester Jesus Army? if it was the latter than i mistook what you were saying cause my post was assuming you were saying ALL christians are ex fuckups turned righteous.

By you. Other people clearly think less of me for not believing in God.

and by Cuahut. he's said it probably more than me and it's been us 2 that you've discussed this with well more than anyone else in here.

I was addressing the claim of historical accuracy. So often it is claimed as a sure thing but from an archaeological perspective there is really no independent secular evidence to back up your claims.

my bad. i misread what you were replying to when you made that post.

[Ta Khent]

Which of the two is more likely to exist based on logical, rational, intelligent thinking?

None of the above. They are all the product of man's illusional creativity.