The Effects of Cognitive Dissonance on a Jumpy New Christian

Six years ago, a man contacted me after having found me on the web - he was looking for a product I was selling at the time and found me via a search, but was not looking for me specifically.

I met him and his wife once and it became clear my product wasn't a fit. For some reason, he added me on Facebook. No big deal. A couple years later, he asked if he could put his then 17 year-old, who was writing a book, in touch with me; yes, fine, although not sure at all what I could do to help, as I've never written a book - ok, I have, this blog, but it hasn't been published.

I have not spoken to the child, who is now an adult, since although we were also "friends" on Facebook. No contact at all for I think four years. Until tonight.

I am more than happy to engage in honest debate. I like it a lot. Honest is the operative word here.

This person said they wanted to engage in a theological debate. What I discovered was they had no intention of debating and - I'm speculating now, but based on some pretty decent evidence - that they were challenged by someone at their church to find someone and "tell them about Jesus."

This person has recently discovered "god," as a result of being engaged to a christian, and, as happens, is SUPER EXCITED about the whole finding god thing and REALLY WANTS TO SHARE the experience. Except doing that with an identified (grumpy, old) atheist was not the best place to start.

As always, these conversations are long, but I will do you, dear reader, the favour of putting in bold the salient places where it is obvious the "debater," is drowning. I've corrected my spelling/grammar errors - I hope all, but probably not, and I've left those made by the other writer, because to some extent they make a point about this person's education. Limited

Have fun.

DE

I know we haven't spoken in a very long time. I was just curious..you're religious, yes? I'm in search of someone to have a theological debate with..if you're interested

ME

Was. Very atheist now. (THIS is where this person might have disengaged)

DE
Might I ask why? (This is when I should have known I was a project and this was not going to be a "theological debate.")

ME

Because religions are illogical, based on no evidence and are not historically, archaeologically, or scientifically supported.

DE

Well science usually goes against religion. (and cue church-infused bias) And as for the rest..all it took for me was a prayer and faith (and cue church-infused rhetoric). When people say the bible contradicts itself, I doubt the apostles sat down to compare notes ** (and cue this person knows NOTHING about biblical history or chronology). 

ME

Probably the best way to understand all this is to analyse why other religions are not correct. For instance, why doesn't hinduism or taoism or islam work for you?

ME

Tell me what "faith" means to you. (This is where I should have disengaged. This person not only didn't answer this, they got to refusing to answer.)

To your point above, you're absolutely right, ** the apostles did not and could not have sat down to compare notes. Matthew was written by several - many, actually - unknown writers about sixty years after the time frame it references. Mark is also a compilation of writings by various writers, many unknown, and dates something like 125 years after the time frame referenced. 

Same for Luke and John. Not surprisingly, those gospels do not agree with each other. Particularly, two of them do not mention "virgin mary." Also specifically, two of them do not consider "jesus" as a messiah. But more importantly, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever such a person lived. 

There are variously 12 to 15 writers quoted to substantiate "christ," but not one of them was alive at the time and none of them actually does mention such a person, let alone corroborate. 

This blog post deals specifically with all of these writers. The writer/owner of this blog is extremely knowledgeable about the subject of religion generally and specifically christianity, its myths and origins

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-historical-evidence-for-jesus.html

A couple of interesting points: DNA, and particularly mitochondrial DNA essentially holds all human information. MDNA is the means by which ancestry is traced. It is highly accurate. Where we're talking about "Adam and Eve," mDNA is a critical detail. Two things; all creation myths have an original couple of some description and the descriptions are mostly similar. 

The existence of a creation myth in all religious stories is evidence of people trying to make sense of things they had no means to understand not of a fact. Where mDNA is concerned, however, if Adam/Eve were a true story, all humans would HAVE to have a shared marker. Not only that, they would also have to have a shared marker for "Noah's" wife - given the mythical floods. We humans do not, however, share mDNA on that scale. 

So this poses a dilemma. In the biblical story, Adam bites into an apple offered him by his partner and such is the reason for the fall. Two problems arise from this: If "god is all knowing and created all things," then such a god would know its creation would fail; in that sense, punishing an underling for something you not only put in their way but which you know in advance will cause them to fail, is psychopathic.

Let's carry on, however. As DNA - mDNA in particular provides us irrefutable proof adam/eve did not exist, then we have no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for a 'saviour.' As such, the necessity for christ is negated. Finally, there's a biological dilemma that cannot be got around. I hope we will agree spirits and angels and gods are not understood to have genes and DNA - if they did, they would necessarily be human. With the "virgin" story, there can only be two logical conclusions. 

Human females require X and Y chromosomes to produce male children. Human females always contribute X. It is not out of the question a human female could - by a very, very long stretch - asexually reproduce. However, that would necessarily produce a female child. If we stick to the story of "Mary" having been made pregnant by a spirit or angel, we must assume that spirit or angel didn't have the means of providing a Y chromosome. Or, if it did, it was human, and the whole "virgin" thing goes out the window, as does the idea such a conception could result in a son of "god." The bible does, by the way, very much contradict itself on this point, when it mentions Jesus was a descendant of the royal house of Kind David...

Now we have also the dilemmas of essentially impossible stories. Take Noah: it seems bizarre that a "perfect being" such as "god" could manage to create such imperfect being as humans, and having foreknoweldge of how fallible such beings would be, eventually gets into such a rage it/he decides to drown nearly every one of its creations and start over. 

To do this, it chooses a very, very ancient man - 600 years old - and his also ancient wife and sons, tasks them with building a massive boat, despite they have absolutely no experience doing so, so could not have possibily known how to acquire the right type of wood (which, incidentally could not have grown in the area described) dry it properly - and in reality such drying takes years - hew the wood, construct a water-tight vessel, stock it with 14,000 animals, conservatively, and all the food they'd require - including meat for the carnivores - keep them healthy, watered (because a world-wide flood would cause salt and fresh water to mix, and hence poison these animals) and keep abreast of all the literal poo that would have piled up several times a day. 

It is, to be blunt, an outrageous story. But, on the very off chance such a think could have happened, we still have the dilemma of how such an old man travelled to places he likely did not know existed, acquire animals like Koalas and kangaroos and iguanas, get them back to his small area of the middle east, and keep them from dying on the way AND keep them alive for a year AND place them back where he found them - AND somehow, by what magic, see them fed from a planet that was flooded for a year and then mate. It's preposterous.

Or consider the story of the jews having wandered for 40 years. This also has absolutely no support at all. Start with the area this is said to have occurred in being about the size of the city of Calgary within its city limits. If such an area were mountainous, perhaps a small tribe of people could hide for that long, but they certainly could not be lost for that long. The logical approach is to wonder where they got food and goods - because what they had with them MUST have worn out at points. 

But archaeologically, this story cannot be true. Even if a tribe of people never made contact with anyone for 40 years, they would have had to dispose of various things as they moved about: earthenware, animal bones, human bones, clothing, etc. If that clothing were made from the sheep they might have had with them (drawing on the very real and very nomadic Bedouin people) there would be remnants of that clothing, and of tents. But no, there is not a scrap of physical evidence of any tribe having wandered.

Given the land area where this is said to have happened is so small and was, even at the time, surrounded with populated places - Iran in particular, which was very progressive and modern at the time - there is no real possibility such a group managed to avoid other humans. They might have been lost but others weren't and the area was a well-used trade route. Someone would have stumbled on them or their stuff at some point.

So, we can prove scientifically the Adam Eve story cannot be true and we can prove both scientifically and by logic the Noah story cannot be true, and we can show via archaeology the wandering tribe story is also not true and we have eliminated the possibility the saviour is necessary, let alone real.

Beyond all that, we DO have masses and masses of irrefutable evidence evolution is a fact. It is undeniable and the only real way to deny it is to ignore facts. We also have masses and masses of verified, observable facts proving there was a "big bang," one being the still-audible universal hiss, in addition to measurable, viewable microwaves (not the kind from a kitchen appliance, by the way) that essentially lead us literally to the point of this bang. The fact the human body, indeed everything in us and on us and on this planet - is made of exactly the same materials found in space, is also undeniable evidence we are, as the excellent and brilliant Dr. DeGrasse Tyson says, literally stardust.

To your point that "science usually goes against religion," that's not exactly correct. Science has shown things proposed by religion are not, and in many cases cannot be true, but that's not "going against," which implies a battle of some type. In reality, science does what it does: it makes and observation, develops a hypothesis, test and tests and tests, and then retests many more times, to develop a theory, and then that theory is put to the test to see if it stands or not. In short, science always, by definition, seeks to disprove itself. Religion, conversely is very, very resistant to being tested, and when it's premises are shown to be false - not possibly false but absolutely false, religions react by digging in, rather than "Oh, well, ok, that's not true."

++So here are some things to think about. If the christian god is omnipotent, all knowing, knows the number of hairs on your head, knew you before you were born, has a plan for your life and knows the hour of your birth and death - as is stated in 1Timothy - how do you have free will? If god knows in advance what you will do in your life, how is it possible to go against god? And, if god already knows what you'll do and what you do is part of this plan, what is the point of punishment?

To make this more real, imagine you have a child you love to the core of yourself. Your goal as a loving parent is to guide that child so it becomes a good, kind, productive person. This is what christians suggest is god's will, yes? So then what would your child that you love have to do in order for you to lock it in a basement and torture it for all eternity? And you do not have the advantage of knowing in advance your child might "sin."


Otherwise, many people say one cannot be moral without religion. My question is this: what is moral about a person who cannot be moral except because there is a threat of death hanging over them? If we're speaking biologically, and we can support this with years and years of research with not only animals but with sociological research of culture and society - moral behaviour is ingrained. 

It is innate and instinctual and core to societies and cultures surviving. The idea of morality being impossible without religion does not play out in reality. To quote Penn Gillette, the magician, when asked what stopped him from raping and thieving all he wants as an atheist, "I do rape and thieve all I want, and all I want is none." The bible itself is not by any definition a source of morals. One need only read the Levitican laws to know following them would be fully, undeniably immoral. I am sure we agree taking one's unruly child to the city gates to have the citizens stone it is not a moral act, nor is doing what the voices in one's head tell one, up to the point where one straps down one's son with a goal of slitting his throat as a sacrifice to an invisible man... 

We also know by innate morality it is NOT moral to rape a female and by that force her to marry her rapist, but that is a prescribed method of wife-getting in the bible. We also know slavery is horrific, immoral and inescuseable, but not only are the rules for how to keep slaves, where to get them and what to do if you beat your slave to death laid out in the old testament, they are reiterated by the jesus character in the new testament.... and why did the kid have to come fix the errors of his perfect, omniscient "father?" So. there you have it. I have less to write about other religions because I have nearly zero experience with them. Beyond that islam derives from christianity - as in it is a younger religion with the hallmarks of a schism from christianity, including acknowledging "jesus" it is decisively a violent religion with a goal of irradiating non-muslims and coercing existing muslims to a narrow interpretation of life, or killing them if they don't comply.

Sorry about all the spelling errors.. I was typing pretty quickly.

DE

God sends challenges. (WHAT?)God gave free will. ++ How your life goes is purely your choice. God sends things and how you deal with it is your choice which ultimately leads to how you live and where you places your denomination. I was an atheist at one point..(I don't think so) then a feeling which I can't really explain came over me and from then I found Jesus..ive found a church and I've been baptized. Since I gave myself to Jesus, everything changed. 

People look to "facts" which really, are just opinions..all opinions, some say God is man made and we created him in our image. Its all how you as a person perceive things. 

To me, Jesus is very real and his is alive and he died me for me. You say the gospels were written by several people? Did these people know each other? Was it all written over a pint? Don't think so..clearly there is truth to it..we're unable to get eyewitness accounts..so its all down to faith, prayer and what you feel within. (Cue confirmation this person has absolutely no background on the bible and how it was written: over 1500 years, three continents and who knows how many people). 

ME

Danny, go back and read what I wrote. I answered this "challenges" thing in detail. No, opinions are not facts. Facts are supported by evidence. Opinions are usually not.

##Question: which god? How did you determine you have the right god, when there are many to choose from. So, given the facts I presented you here, how do you logically ignore them? Why is your god correct and Shiva not? Or thor? What is the evidence you base your choice on? I'd really like you to answer these four questions.

DE

I believe in the God that presented himself to me.. God the father, God the son and the holy spirit. And no amount of man made facts, opinions, whatever will shake my faith. For whatever reason your faith was shaken. (This is the place I knew there was no debate gonna happen. The second someone says nothing will shake their faith is the second you know you're not speaking with a rational person). 

ME

So here's the problem with your statement above here: You engaged on the basis of a debate. Debates rely on facts and substantiation. If you refuse to entertain any facts, logic, evidence, support, proof, then you do not want a debate. HOW did this god present itself to you? HOW do you know it is the god described by christians not Krishna? HOW do you know? Why are you right and Hindus are wrong? I'm curious: Has this new church of yours charged you to go out and "win hearts for christ?"

DE

##I'm not bringing other denominations into this. He presented himself to me with a wonderful warm and almost indescribable feeling (some people say the same about peeing themselves).

I knew straight away who it was and what it meant. My proof is my faith and I tell you ever since I found him I've been smiling like I found gold because he touched my heart and warmed my soul. And yes my girlfriend now attends service as does her father and step mom. Aha!

ME

So how do you know that warm wonderful feeling came from the christian god? HOW do you know which god "touched" you? To say you know by faith is to claim to know something you not only do not know, you cannot know. I understand you're happy, and your experience is exactly that of ANY religious convert. But this experience of your does NOT confirm which "god" So I ask you again, HOW do you KNOW which god you're claiming to know.

I will remind you again, YOU said you wanted a debate. You can't now back out and refuse to debate because the information is uncomfortable. Seriously. You're not an idiot. Are you really telling me you don't care at all about facts and evidence? Are you really saying to me despite things that cannot be true, you're still going here?

ME

Because that's not a rational choice: that's buying in to group-think and to the feeling of the community you've got at a church. But what they're selling you - does it matter at all to you there is no evidence for it? Are youeally saying facts do not matter to you?

DE

I thought you said there was no evidence? What evidence do you speak of? (What I didn't know here, but which was revealed later, is this person didn't read ANYTHING I wrote above). 

DE

Tell me..if I gave you the most compelling, most beautiful testimony ever...would it change your mind? Would you accept it and not try to shoot it down?

DE

Did you accept the conversation because you're actually searching for answers? Or just because you wanted to try to make me atheist (This was my "holy shit" moment... I'm not sure why this person figures I'm "searching for answers" or trying to make them an atheist. I made it clear in my first comment I am atheist. This is just such a weird moment, but it was where it really started to smack of church-speak). 

ME

I just spent 45 minutes presenting you information. Did you read it?

DE

No, im packing as I said. Regardless of the essays, we may always see differently

ME

First of all, You approached me. You don't get to suggest I have an agenda. You asked me a couple questions and I gave you a very comprehensive answer.

Does evidence matter to you?

DE

Yes. But my evidence is my faith (so no) Your opinion is yours but don't suggest I change mine (AKA, don't debate me despite my having asked you to debate).

ME

Because I can tell you exactly how this is going to go. I've asked you three or four very specific questions here and you have not only ignored those, you have ignored my very long, comprehensive information above.

That is not fair. Faith is NOT evidence. It is based on nothing and it makes claims to knowledge it cannot have.

I'm not suggesting you change anything.

DE

Just because. Faith isn't your evidence doesn't mean facts are better (what does one say?)

And you wrote too many facts I didn't bother reading it because you to were ignoring my faith. 

All I asked why you dropped god. Did not need all these facts that too are just here's say. (I answered that in my second comment above).

ME

I asked you some questions. There is no suggestion in them to change anything. I'm trying to understand how you KNOW what you say you know. 

What you're doing is called a logical fallacy - and the fallacy you're committing right now is called "moving the goalposts." It consists of you making claims, me asking for clarification of those claims and you not providing clarification AND proposing another question or subject to remove yourself from having to substantiate what claims you made.

I removed a section here about my background - long, evangelical, generations of it. Boring, and if you've been here before, you know this. 

DE

You're asking for proof that obviously doesn't matter to you anyway (this is a common tactic with the religious - it translates to "I have proof but I'm not going to give it up because you're an asshole).

 I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. We might as well be arguing that red is black, we're going to get nowhere so to be honest..this is completely pointless. Yes facts matter to me..and I listen to both sides but my faith will never be broken. (So no, facts do not matter).

ME

No, I am not asking for proof. Pretend I'm a devout muslim. Now convince me YOUR god is the right one.

Seriously. If you can't address this, you have a problem. You cannot say facts matter at the same time as you claim your "faith" will never be broken. 

If facts do matter to you, then go back and READ what I spend nearly an hour writing. The FACTS prove beyond ANY doubt NONE of the characters you say you believe in CAN or ever did exist. 

(This is where I become a bit touchy... ) May I caution you to not invite people to debate you when you have no intention of debating. It is dishonest to make such an approach, refuse all facts put to you, suggest your testimony will shift someone away from fact and then claim the discussion YOU invited is pointless when the facts put to you entirely contradict your unfounded, and unsubstantiated beliefs.

You're welcome to believe whatever you wish but you are not welcome to dishonestly engage in "debate," when your goal, which is now very obvious, is to take someone's time - which in my case was given quite freely - refuse to acknowledge ANY points put to you, refuse to substantiate your claims and then retreat with the ridiculous "nothing can shift me." It is not intelligent.

I realise you are presently in the excitement phase of being a new christian - been there, done that, seen it a hundred times. But at some point you either entirely give up being a rational thinker or you WILL have to confront the points put to you, starting with HOW do you KNOW this god of yours is the christian god and not Shiva or Thor or Zeus or the Great Juju in the sea. 

If you can't answer that very fundamental question - how do you know - then you cannot expect anyone to consider you credible.

So tell me again how exactly this emotional experience you had is for SURE the christian god "touching" you and not some other god.

And tell me again how, despite the facts put to you - DNA, genetics, biology, history, archaeology and science are all wrong and your "faith" overrides all that evidence.

(And now the wife-to-be jumps in...)

DE/NE

K this ends now. I am NE, DE's soon to be [spouse. They were] NOT DEBATING ... just asking one stupid question about why you changed from god that is all. You DID,NOT need to blow up with [them].

ME

(I'm still speaking to the initial poster here... And I'll wager you are angry at the moment and you think I'm quite mean for having put these questions to you and for having presented you quite a bit of information. (this is going to play out shortly)

This is called cognitive dissonance and it happens when information - in this case rational, logical information directly contradicts something you believe. It results in the person feeling VERY uncomfortable - usually really angry - which they sort by saying the other person is doesn't have an open mind, or, as you put it above here, won't accept the proof you could offer, so you won't bother. all that only serves to get you an out from having to substantiate these claims.

DE/NE

These stupid facts about this crap just stop cuz you are upsetting ... and pissing me off. No offense. Believe what you want. I don't care facts aren't always right but faith is (church-speak 2.0)

ME

Hello NE. DE engaged me in this conversation. This is his opening post: "I know we haven't spoken in a very long time. I was just curious..you're religious, yes? I'm in search of someone to have a a theological debate with..if you're interested."

As they point out, we haven't spoken in a very long time. They said they wanted a theological debate. I thought that was an honest approach but it seems it was not a debate they were after; it was an opportunity for conversion. You're more than welcome to read this entire thread and I hope very much you will, and then I hope you two will engage in some honest discussion between the two of you.

DE/NE have been reading the whole time. And your points I do not like and I'll it again DE was not debating he has strong faith in his god WHICH is evidence ... doesn't need to be to you. 

Facts are not always justified. I know the lord is real yet im not 100% committed I see and feel him in my own way DE never once said you were wrong but you are soo damn judgmental. (um what? Since when is posting information and asking questions judgemental? Oh... when the cognitive dissonance kicks in. Right). 

 And saying what DE thinks is wrong or can't exist. This conversation stops now and I mean it. Sorry for the rudeness but you are upsetting DE and I protect those I love. Good byw

ME

GREAT. WHICH god? HOW do you know the "Lord" is real?

 I am judgemental about someone who engages dishonestly, yes. 

THE FACTS say what you believe cannot exist. I did not say this. I am quoting facts and referencing science, history, archaeology and logic.

It is rude and dishonest to engage a near stranger in a "debate," when you have absolutely no intention of debating and every intention of proselyting. 

So you both know, I have copied this entire conversation and will be posting it to my blog, as I always do with these types of "conversations." Neither of you will be identified in any way, and my blog does not identify me, although many people who read it know I am the writer. The reason I post these conversations is to point out the flaws in these religious arguments - and particularly the refusal to read, let alone consider the facts. 

May I say how really despicable it is to engage someone like this, and then resort to name calling.

DE/NE

What you have quoted are not facts its called being too damn opinionated. Just drop this and stop replying like I asked because I am getting mad  (cognitive dissonance, with the effect I noted would occur). and I do not like being disrespectful to older people.

Facts facts facts can only get you so fair in life... faith love gets you everywhere. And you are not allowed you post this without consent. (Yes, I can)
DE wasnt debating just one simple question and you ran over with atheist opinion (or a bunch of facts) Now please stop. And better not post this because its against the law without him saying its okie (nope, it isn't. And that's "Okay," by the way). 

Nope. Facts. It's not my opinon there is not only no evidence for your god or any god, nor is it my opinion there is no evidence at all for christ and proof that adam and eve did not and could not have existed. I told you, Danny. Cognitive dissonance. You engaged ME. YOU said YOU wanted a theological debate. A debate is not what you're doing here.

DE/NE

All im saying now is enough please. And dont you dare post this personal crap on your blog

because thats stirring up trouble with he nor I need.

ME

I am going to post it. You will not be identified in ANY way. Not city, not gender not work. Nothing.

DE/NE

I gave my views, you gave yours. You've been told many times that this is done now. I wanted a nice conversation where both sides could be seen..not you attacking me for having a god that you chose to leave (oooohhh nice attack!)

Does not matter its DE's words meaning DE has rights and you cannot post what DE as said NOT ANY OF IT. Post your parts but not DE's.

ME

I am NOT attacking you. I am pointing out the flaws in yoru argument and the fact you can't substantiate your claims. ANY time you want to substantiate your claims, you're more than welcome. I can absolutely post it and I will. It will not identify you in any way.

DE/NE

I've gave MY POINTS! I BELIEVE BECAUSE HE CAME TO ME! JUST AS HE ONCE CAME TO YOU (Church-speak)

Again DE's words meaning you cannot not because you have no consent grow up please and learn the rights and laws... you can post what you say yes but not DE's

You chose to leave..its because of people like you that my faith and love for him only grows stronger (I'm not sure even what this is supposed to mean, but it's church-speak)

DE/NE

I don't have to hide my believes..and I don't call people out for worshipping a different God to me. That's their choice..who am I to tell them any different? Who am I to say they're wrong?

Regardless of beliefs, they're my fellow man..and all I can do is love them and look,after them as best I can until we're all called home (except for the atheists who ask questions that make you uncomfortable, I assume?)

This is called a personal conversation and you are very rude for saying your gonna post this. Post what you say and believe but dont you dare post his even tho you take DE's name off. It is still wrong.

And whether you once had Jesus..whether you're still trying to find him or whether you cast him away from you..he loves you and always will (oh for shit's sake..... )

ME

HOW do you KNOW? Did you see this person? IF you're relying on a feeling, then you don't have any solid reason to know. Feelings are not reliable and they are certainly not evidence. Please don't presume my experience. I was raised in that environment. I did not choose it.

DE/NE 

I was as well I was forced to believe. As I grew up I did not want to follow it. But I do know its real just because you dont doesn't mean it isn't (wow. Stunning logic... also known as drowning)

You always have a choice! That's the point! You chose to leave..not because as I can work out because you felt forced but because your apparent facts (yeah, "apparent" facts) told you otherwise. How would your eleven generations feel about your sudden atheism? (They don't like it. So what?)

ME (still trying to get this person to understand they cannot confirm which god they're talking about...)Exactly. Who are you to say they're wrong. But how do you know YOU are right and they are not??

What if you ARE wrong and Allah is the right god? HOW do you know you've made the right choice? How do you substantiate there is such a thing as what you call "home?" You do understand you can see fully 400 GALAXIES with your naked eye? If earth is a tiny, tiny, tiny planet on a tiny arm of a tiny galaxy in a tiny part of the cosmos and there are 400 galaxies viewable and all of those could potentially have planets like this one, WHERE is your "heaven"?

DE/NE
Heaven is not of this world..as Jesus said he is not of this world. Heaven is Gods home, beyond our known universe. (Church-speak spoken by someone who has no science to speak of).

ME

The facts are these and these are NOT opinion. DNA proves the adam eve story cannot be true. DNA also proves the noah story cannot be true. History, archaeology and the 48 historians alive and writing at the time jesus was supposed to have lived provide NO EVIDENCE AT ALL that person ever lived. History and archaeolgy DO substantiate the Council of Nicea has a very specific, written-down agenda that included erradicating the jewish population of the time - and having a dead messiah - which They MADE UP - was a great tool.

DE/NE

I believe what my heart knows is real. And I know you are pushing and pushing to say what you say is apparently right. But who are you to say you are right huh??? JUST YOU. But that's you I am not telling you what to think or say or believe but I know you arw now being a bully and attacking because we are rebelling your thoughts but we arw who we are grow up and deal with it and stop replying if your really mature

ME (Stunned by that writer's really bad grammar and sentence structrure. WHY is it always the uneducated who fall for religion. I know; rhetorical).

Again, that's nice but it's not evidence.

I said syop replying

Do you not understand

Dont reply

ME

Hindus also believe with their hearts as do muslims and zoroastrians and mormons. NOT evidence.

I'm not attacking. I am asking you to substantiate your claims here. I am also pointing out feelings are not evidence. Neither of those is an attack.

DE/NE

Jeez... I guess english doesnt get threw (sic) to you... ma am I have said enough drop it is that too hard or what

ME

if you're going to engage someone who made it very clear in my FIRST post back to you is an ATHEIST, then do not be surprised when you get yourself deep into stuff you haven't thought about. 

I have. All my life.

DE
You know what..and this proves im pissed off..DNA can suck my balls, alright. I Believe WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE! ACCEPT IT. Goodnight.

ME

But I'd sure love to hear this heartfelt testimony that will convert me.

DE

If you reply you will be blocked. Have a good life apparently you have without him. Piss off

 

And thus concludes a lesson in what happens when people join churches, get all warm and fuzzy up in there, take on what seems to be a church challenge to go find a non-believer and hit 'em up.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it results in a high level of discomfort when what one believes is shown to be crap. Usually results in anger and very often in insults, screaming and yelling and stomping about, kinda like what happened here.

It's predictable and annoying, but hilarious in a weird way.