It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


300 proofs to GODs existance

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:06 AM
Jag you are Halarious

Jag Quetzalcoatl/Quexalcote see the difference????

Tyrrific I will take the time to ask my friend from Thailand as to the subject.

To be honest have never heard of this claim Jag is making but it is possible that it happened to one of the Buddha's, crucifixion was very popular in it s day.

It think there has been actually more than just one or two stories concerning something along the same lines as Jesus' life, that such exist means there were

Otherwise the issue would not be an issue would it?

Any thoughts?

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by Toltec]

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:12 AM
Giants fan, nothingness is more probable than existance.

Existance itself is the proof of God, trying to tell what God is is man's greatest folly.

God could just be as simple as all of existance, but it's probably more than that...purpose, all things have a purpose, science fails to explain those purposes.

Hence why today you have so many people who don't live, they are just shells that want sex and drugs because they don't understand the intricacies of a flower, let alone the proton!

God, what keeps the quarks in the proton? Protector? Little help man...

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:15 AM
I am saying that Sakya Buddha was not crucified - He died of old age - many skeptic web sites claim that Sakya Buddha was crucified. Understand. Also I cannot find any reference to Quexalcote except in Kersey Graves' book or qoutes and references to his book as reported in one of my previous posts. I can find no other literay references to Quexalcote. Do you know of any?? However I find loads of web sites about Quetzalcoatl leaving me to believe that Graves used an archaic spelling.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Tyriffic
........I find it humorous the sheer number of people who discount GOD'S existence, yet find so many creative ways to deny and denigrate said non-existence

If there was a person who said to you he believed the world was flat, you would laugh at him and walk away, not wanting to waste your time refuting him- thinking him a fool.

Why so much effort to disprove a concept/Person you have no belief in then??

Thank you Tyrrific for this excelent observation.

I've recently hung around the forums and news of the "American Atheists" and came to the conclusion that Atheists are insecure people, who because they have no beliefs...have to force that idea upon others.

They call themselves freethinkers, in reality they are so convinced that there is nothing, (Without god what is there? God is infinite, everything). That they refuse to listen to reality.

Again, my expereinces with the "American Athiests" show that the extent of their scientific knowledge usually lies in history, particularly, in history that debunks Jesus.

Most Atheists, are mis-named, as most just deny Christianity and current religions, and get confused into thinking they also disbelieve in a God.

Most Atheists (again from discussions at American Athiests), tend to become atheists in their pubesant years...of course.

And usually did so because their parents were too "religious" or such.

Most Atheists, take offense at religious people practicing their religions.

A Christian, in a school with public prayer, would not take offense at a Muslim praying, nor a Jew Praying, yet an Atheist is immediately offended.


Because the Atheist (already said to have a bad home life...) most likely has an inferiority complex, and can not handle the fact that he is not only "one with the group", but also the leader of that group.

So like-wise most atheists tend to group together, and be very forceful in their views upon other.


Atheists are idiot biggots.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:24 AM
*EDIT* In above post, it should be "not one with the group, and not leader of that group"...

Most Atheists feel they deserve some right to expression...which is odd.

Because Atheists have nothing to express.

They should just shut up and stay in a corner while the Religious people's express their religion...

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:41 AM
Jag try Google use the word Quexalcote - the first two pages.

To be honest its a shame that more atheist have not yet come foward to share there impressions.

Any thoughts?

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:48 AM

Previous post by jagdflieger
Google search on Quexalcote produced 142 hits, among which are:
Note the comment at the top about Kersey Graves scholarship (this is also a skeptic's web site).
The web site contains many errors concerning Krishna, etc.
Every site dealing with Quexalcote does not state where they got their information (they seem to be quoting Graves). I cannot find a reference to Quexalcote other than Graves,Toltec can you give one? Do you know of any archaeological references to Quexalcote or any original textual refences to him.

Toltec what did you think I did? Also I made the point that Sakya Buddha died of old age when many skeptic web sites claim "Sakya Buddha was crucified as a sin atonement". Any comments about that?

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:51 AM
* Puts on atheist's hat *

"That site was hilarious. It pointed out how there can be no such thing as proof of God. All those proofs contain ridiculous convolutions and contortions, or just blind dogma with no conclusion at all. And that is all believers can ever do. There is no proof. There cannot be proof. We are all that there is. You are stupid to believe, and the basis of your belief is very likely to be explained by one of those stupid so-called proofs."

(special reference to Toltec on the convolutions and contortions

* Takes atheist's hat off and reinstates skeptic's hat, no cattle *

"Hmmm.... what that MaskedAtheist guy said was pretty right. I've never heard anybody try to prove the existence of God except by one of those circular proofs. Maybe I am an atheist after all."

* Takes off skeptic's hat *

"Actually, why should I care? I don't wrong people, and I follow principles of virtue, so I am prepared to meet whoever I meet on his, her or its own terms and my terms. I am not frightened."

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:51 AM
What thoughts Toltec? I just got done telling you, Atheists don't think.

They can't think, because anyone who thinks can obviously see the folly of saying there is nothing more than what we see.

If they thought, they would realize that for there to be existance now, there has to be existance always, so say goodbye to "poofing out of existance" when you die.

Which so many Atheists believe.

Atheists have crappy lives, I've not only yet to see an Atheist write about how awesome life is, but I've also yet to see an atheist talk about how awesome life is.

Oh wow, look at that accident...I mean flower...over there.

Oh man, life is so ... accidental ... wow, I never even bothered to think "Why are we here" because man...we aren't here dude...we don't exist.

Wait yes we do...but it's all an accident.

Aww crap...I can't seem to disprove God using reason and logic, just religions...well better turn off the old noodle *sticks q-tip into ear*.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 01:53 AM

Just remember, I knew you were coming, and I beat you by mere seconds.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:00 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by that MA
Also, did you mean to say "maskedatheist" or "maskedAVATAR"? Because really....that post didn't seem to have any point or sense for me to figure out what you meant there lol

But that probably has to do with the fact I've read little of other's comments here...

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:07 AM
This is strange idea - the word avatar comes from Avatara - the Hindu word for an incarnation of a diety (Rama, Vishnu, etc.). By using the word "avatar" in his name is Maskedavatar inferring that he considers himself an incarnation of Rama or Vishnu? Just a thought that popped into my mind.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:08 AM
Also, about that whole "quexelcote" and jesus thing.

You both do realize that sometimes (very rarely but still), women can get pregnant without male insimination right?

It's a freak fluke, but to think logically of does a male get born when this happens? I don't know if they do or don't, but it doesn't seem they can as they are missing the Y cromosome.

However...notice that all the people born of Virgins, are men...not women.

Maybe our primitive ancestors realized that Virgin Births can happen rarely, but that Virgin born males was just "impossible" for their minds to comprehend!

Don't listen to that "Femenist" garbage, that because it was a patriarchal society only the men get the credit.

Due to the fact that women can sometimes have Virgin Births, then a male born of such, must be so rare...he must be a God.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:11 AM

An atheist view was requested, so MaskedAvatar who had posted previously on this Topic as MaskedAvatar put on an atheist's hat to become (temporarily) MaskedAtheist for the purpose of providing (in his opinion only) a well-acted atheist impersonation in response to the topic.

The fact that I consciously decided to get my post in just before yours was not evidence of a God, but of something far more sinister...

BTW, it may be that not many atheists will sneak a peek at this topic because they think they will find exactly the kind of proofs as given by the linked body of philosophy, and be nauseated by it; ergo they have missed out on some enlightenment to back their beliefs as well as some interesting discussion.

[Edited on 6-8-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:13 AM
The only people who seem to know who Quexelcote is are the atheists. I can find no reference to this diety except from a book written by a guy named Graves (in 1895 I think) and all the skeptic web sites which quote Graves. Other than that, I can't find anything about Quexelcote. It is almost like this is a god that the atheists made up. (Maybe they worship Quexelcote in secret - only telling the world they are atheists.)

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:19 AM
An ancient work entitled Codex Vaticanus, gives an account of the immaculate conception of Quexalcote [Quetzalcoatl], the Mexican Savior.


I have studied comparative religion, but not paid much attention to non-dominant faiths. I believe this faith is ancient, and has its own mythologies, and is not contrived by atheists.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:22 AM
Now you know how I feel jagd lol!

Researcher keeps shoveling the same sources every time in an attempt to prove something about Masonry, something he's never been a part of.

And now you are stuck with a "Jesus figure" that is only referenced by ONE man! lol

And so you know...Yahoo can't find any pages that match a search for "quexelcote" lol...

Eh..."Freethinkers" what a bunch of loones.

If they were freethinkers they'd shut up and let others think the way they only act the way you think!

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:26 AM
Previously I made that assumption, but Toltec pooh poohed it. Look at the previous postings on this thread. I assumed that he knew who Quetzalcoatl and Quexalcote were and that they were separate deities. I can find 3900 web sites dealing with Quetzalcoatl, but Toltec indicated that they were not the same.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:27 AM

Just check your spelling, and try again.

Loons and Yahoos are synonymous in may respects.

posted on Aug, 6 2003 @ 02:29 AM
Holy I don't believe it.

Quexalcote IS Jesus.

See you got to love the stupidity of Atheists...but can you blame them? They aren't Masons and therefore have no knowledge of who the HELL the Templar knights were.

Now this is still "theory" but the Templars obviously went SOMEWHERE after they were persecuted.

And a good theory is they did go to the new world "La Merica" which later became "America" the name attributed to Amerigo was later taken back by the attributer which was Waldseemueler, who said that the land was really named for the western star.

"La Merica" a Templar belief of the land of milk and honey.

I've always figured "Quetzalquatle" or however it is spelt were the Templars, because he fit the description of a Spanish Conquestador so well, even down to the white sails of the

So the Templars I feel must have made it to the natives of Mexico, and they considered them Gods of Iron because of course, the Templars had metal tools and the Meso-Americans lacked good metal.

So, the Templars, being the Catholics they were, undoubtedly shared their "Great Book" with any natives they could speak to (providing they did indeed visit the Mexicans)...

So not only did they leave the "myth" of the return of Quexalcotle.

But also the myth of "Quexalcote" which is if you read about him, just a spitting image of jesus.


History always has another door to be tried before making claims, and Atheists, only make claims that fit their agenda.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in