Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof that Jesus and all Religions are False

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:33 PM
Where is the proof?
Really bad comparisons between holy men of different religions?
Some formula that calculates the number of sentient beings in the universe?
I truly do not see any proof at all although I do know where you are aiming at.

I can only laugh at the fact how you guys talk about how those brainwashed believers shift responsibility and other things on God or the Devil as in:
"The Devil made me do it!" "This is a test from God!" etc.

The thing is that you "open-minded" people do the same thing. You blame God and religion for almost all bad things in the world. As some have said you are just the other side of the coin.

It is all man's fault. Absolutely everything! Why do wars start? Because of misunderstandings, unability to understand one another, because of man's hunger for more etc.
Religion has degenerated from a guide to the upper levels of consciousness to a tool of control. But that did not happen just so, man did it!
Science is also not at fault. Science brought us many goods. The problem again is that man has not evolved as fast as science and as such he does not know how to use it properly.

Man should take responsibility for all that he has done and should not blame others.

We can also apply the principle of yin-yang to religion. It has it's bad sides but it also has it's good sides. The base foundations of my moral compass would not have developed were it not for religion (a simple example)

I honestly believe that we did not come to Earth just to enjoy. We came in order to evolve. If people are too ignorant then suffering comes such as wars etc.

I do apologize for my grammatical mistakes as I am still learning

Just my two cents...

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Neon Haze

I dont know why so many people cant see the truth. The truth is MY holy grail! I do believe that religion or whatever you want to call it is based on nature, and how it was percieved...

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Neon Haze

no problem at all,

One good source is "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors: Christianity before Christ" Kersey Graves.

(sigh) Oh, Neon... you were dong fine until you started going into the points that book made. It's a really bad source book.

Originally posted by Neon Haze
The stories of Jesus and Horus are more than very similar. The legends of Horus go back three thousand years, and he shares the following in common with Jesus:

Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, His birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.

No, no, no, no, no... and no. He was the god son of a goddess and god who were brother and sister, he was not born in a cave, his birth was not announced by a star, no men attended his birth (he hatched from an egg and flew to the horizon), he wasn't a teacher, baptism was never practiced on gods, he had millions of followers but no disciples, his father died and he avenged him but he didn't die, he never walked among the people and performed miracles (he's a god... you pray to him.) He was not known by any of the titles you gave.

Here's the REAL story of Horus, as seen on temple walls and in other places (and he dates to 3,000 BC; one of the oldest gods written about)

The story of Mithra precedes the Christian fable by at least 600 years and was "the most popular and widely spread 'Pagan' religion of the times."

Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus.

Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.

He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.

He had 12 companions

Joseph Campbell apparently made up the virgin birth (the sources say he was "born from a rock.") No, nor did he perform miracles -- he's a warrior god. He's accompanied in art by two torchbearers, not 12 companions and he's associated with bull sacrifices, and a dog and a snake.

His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

Not according to what they wrote about their religion.

And I think that the issues with Krishna were discussed. They're not very similar -- Krishna, for one, was an avatar of Vishnu, and his mother had been childless for a long time. There was no such thing as a baptism, he was a prince who shocked some people by playing with the cow herders:

In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves. He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

This isn't in any of the Hindu traditions, and he would not have been a "sin bearer" because every person bears their own karma and has to work it out. They do not have a trinity.

Prometheus shares a number of similarities with the Christ character.
Prometheus descended from heaven as God incarnate as man, to save mankind.

He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead.

He was one of the Titans (a firstborn god) stayed a god, did not incarnate, brought fire to the world, was not killed but IS chained up on a mountain in the Causcus range where an eagle comes to peck his liver every day. His name means "forethought."

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven." He was of royal descent. He crushed a serpent's head. He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water. He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."

His mother was Mayadevi, nine holy scholars said he'd either be a great king or a great wise man, married his cousin, got shocked out of his wealthy and indolent life by the statements of his charioteer, became an aesthetic, had five companions, discovered a philosophy called "the Middle Way", became a great teacher, lived to be about 80 years old. No transfiguration on a mount, was not considered a carpenter nor a shepherd :

He taught this:

# The Four Noble Truths: that suffering is an inherent part of existence; that the origin of suffering is ignorance and the main symptoms of that ignorance are attachment and craving; that attachment and craving can be ceased; and that following the Noble Eightfold Path will lead to the cessation of attachment and craving and therefore suffering.
# The Noble Eightfold Path: right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

The religions are interesting to study, but the book you have is one of the very few bad ones on comparative religion. Wikipedia would be a better source.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

I don't know what I was thinking. I apologize. I didn't know you had facts that support non-existence.

Wow! I feel your RAGE! Why don’t you ask the OP that question? Furthmore, I am not going to do your research for you. So before you go condemning everyone who disagree with YOU do some research, you have not read the OP thread had you, You wouldn’t be asking me the questions would you.

Might I ask where you got these facts from? Is something does not exist I am confused as to where facts could come from.

Sure, try using your computer and a search engine and you will find the facts that’s prove religion is nothing but a fallacy.

As one of the other posters so eloquently stated in his attempt to slander religious beliefs. "Did you get these from your imaginary friend?"

Your ignorance is showing, and your ridiculing of the Op article is your last attempt to save your emotional “imaginary” beliefs

Facts have to come from somewhere my friend and from nothing comes nothing. So please do tell how you got facts from non-existence.

You are repeating yourself, do your homework before you make a fool out of yourself.

I can assure you, that if you got facts from non-existence, in fact there would have to be existence in order to gather facts

More of the same repeats, (facts from non-existence) do some real research and stop attacking people who do not believe in your fairytales


These are NOT theories.


Yeah really! This thread is NOT about me, and I really do not want to get into an emotional debate with you because you are ignorant on the subject to begin with.

You mean you actually found supporting evidence of non-existence.

This is the third time you have repeated yourself (of non-existence) now all you are doing is ranting.

My friend you need to submit that to the board for a Nobel prize, you are the first person in the history of mankind to be able to provide evidence of something that doesn't exist.

Wrong! And save your lame snide remarks they are not warrant on this thread!

I personally glad I got to meet you here. You are indeed a special person being able to accomplish the impossible.

I really feel for you, I went through this outrage myself when I did my RESEARCH. You can stay ignorant, and worship a fallacy, if that makes you feel nice and safe in your beliefs, that my friend is your choice.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by impressme]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:44 PM

Originally posted by cancerian42
reply to post by manbird12000

I didn't think this point would come up in this thread, but it is by all means true. If you want to go even further with this idea: no one really knows if anything exists outside him or herself at all. This world that we seem to be perceiving outside of us could really just be an illusion that is created inside of you whatever you are and everything is within you rather than you being a part of existence with limited knowledge, power, and presence. That would make you God. Fun!

exactly cancerian, a guy sitting at his computer, doing math and defining the expanse of our universe and the probably number of beings in it, then by using comparative analysis he refutes the presence of God is absurd.

Is Faith graded on what is numerically more probable?

People believe in the Evil and Good doings of Man without EVER actually witnessing it, yet many who witness the favor of God and his guiding hand EVERY day, refuse to believe it at all.

I don't judge nonbelievers who have not seen an ounce of god's favor....and I don't want to be judged by nonbelievers because I've seen his favor everyday.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by dreamchaser68

What is "nature" and how do you base religion on it? Do you mean the worship of cows, cats or the moon as deities?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:51 PM
reply to post by silo13

How about *That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger*?

I am tired of attempted murder. The crap no longer makes me stronger- it just makes me mad. Blaming God is a cop out? He who is in charge of thew universe, expects us to pray to him, And (supposedly) answers prayer? But doesn't because 'it's his will'- otherwise known as 'Go stuff yourself, mortal'.

Ummm- I have every right, and reason to blame "God"- or whatever's in charge of this crazy, mixed up universe. I don't care who's running the show.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by wylekat]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:55 PM
THE reason, to the extent there's only one, humanity hasn't (yet?) been able to reach any of the larger, broader truths, and become an at least reasonably civilized species (overall), is because of religions - and ESPECIALLY the PARTICULARLY dogmatic Abrahamic-monotheistic ones. Too many people are too brainwashed with the notion that beliefs equal truths, when REAL truths are simply objective, proven facts. Religions are the original and primary reason for the existence of secrecy-BASED government(s) and all the concurrent horror, misery and corruption, as I see it. Too many fragile, flimsy-eggshell egos and psyches would or will be shattered by the revelation of enough objectivity (for the first time ever). Ya-HEESH!! The "fun" never ends...

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
THE reason, to the extent there's only one, humanity hasn't (yet?) been able to reach any of the larger, broader truths, and become an at least reasonably civilized species (overall), is because of religions - and ESPECIALLY the PARTICULARLY dogmatic Abrahamic-monotheistic ones. Too many people are too brainwashed with the notion that beliefs equal truths, when REAL truths are simply objective, proven facts. Religions are the original and primary reason for the existence of secrecy-BASED government(s) and all the concurrent horror, misery and corruption, as I see it. Too many fragile, flimsy-eggshell egos and psyches would or will be shattered by the revelation of enough objectivity (for the first time ever). Ya-HEESH!! The "fun" never ends...

Is it religion that is responsable for "all the concurrent horror"? I'd have to call this extreme prejudice and hate speech. Is it not corrupt people doing corrupt things that are responsalbe for "all the concurrnet horror"?
I've noticed alot of this verbage in "forward modern thinking"...

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by impressme

impressme, I compare your rage to put down others who believe in God to the anger meat eaters have towards vegetarians. All you are doing is demonstrating that when someone's system of belief is attacked, they will react as you have.

I see, little human beings, sitting at home with their calculators and reading man's literature as tools for them to decypher the makings of the entire universe.

Most people who do not believe in god, didn't become nonbelievers by doing math and fomulas. They become nonbelievers because of the experiences they've had in their life, or because they do not see the presence and guidance of God.

Why should they be right in their belief and ridicule those who HAVE had experiences in their life and DO see the presence and guidance of God?

Don't hide behind these formulas, formulas you never knew existed when you decided to be a non believer.

Piggybacking on another persons "reasons" because it agrees comfortably with yours is not my idea of "seeking the Truth"

People who seek the truth are usually seeking to support their original belief. Unless you're one of the rare few who actually opens his eyes to not just human birthed ideas and formulas but to your own experiences and subconscious.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:07 PM
byrd, arjuna was the one shocked by his charioteer (krishna was teh charioteer). Buddha saw the different stages of life and suffering which led to his leaving the palace life.

sorry couldn't resist.

also depending on which text you're reading at the time krishna claims either avatar status or supreme diety. there's somewhat of a gray area with the top three gods of hinduism. sheeva, brahma, and vishnu. however krishna superceedes all of them at least according to the gita.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Mozzy]

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:09 PM
At first I thought this was going to be just another typical thread and everyone would jump on board and support the original post, the material not the person.
As I skimmed through I am happy that people had the same questions that I had and presented them in a way I am not capable of doing so.

Another thing that just rang through my head while reading all the content in the op is "Who cares, who cares,who cares?" not in a sarcastic way but honestly who truly cares and why do they care what OTHER people believe?
On a general basis believers do not bother us, they live their daily lives just as much as us non believers (but lately seems like more and more they are the ones presenting all the questions and "proof".) they go about their day, they don't stop you on the street and preach to you, they don't go out of their way to prove their God or Religion to you unless you approach them with a religious debate (this isn't always true, but for the majority it is.)

So honestly who cares and why, not only it is basically a lost cause and even if you did have some kind proof to prove instead of a bunch of theories, stories and assumptions they still wouldn't care (faith.), but also isn't it some what pretentious and self involved to believe that you as a person should be able to dictate what others believe, "OH I WANT TO WAKE PEOPLE UP!" one gave you that job, no one so no one should feel as if they carry that burden when it was never given to them.
To think that one person should have the control over a total belief system of another person is just childish and flat out a waste of time that can be used some where else.
Is it that they want to be right, the kind of thing where they want the last word and the burst of ego they get if the trap someone is a theoretical corner and make someone look wrong or stupid?
The only person we should be concerned with is our selves, do people really not want to look at them that selves that they'll take a debate that's been beaten like a dead horse and keep breathing life in it just so they can live in blindness of their own internal self?

If someone has a religion that can help them cope with life and tragedy who is anyone to take that away from them who is anyone to say they shouldn't have this?

People need to take a deeper look into the basis of religious and not just skim the superficial surface.
Why some people need it, why some people would be dead without it.
It's not just a bunch of facts .
It's much more , but for people who just shut everything out they lack to go to that kind of emotional&empathetic depth and understanding.

When you try to prove religion isn't real and you press the issue you possibly toying with someones heart, with their life, you are possibly cut the ties to one of the few things that may be keeping them alive, but I guess if it means your right, makes you feel like the biggest and smartest realist in the world it doesn't matter.

I work with people everyday who have lead horrible lives, seen terrible things, and done terrible things to themselves for most of them religion is what got them to take notice of their life, to have a thirst for being a better person care about others and themselves.
I would never question that. I would never deny them that.
No matter how strongly I feel otherwise.
They are also some of the strongest most amazing people I've ever encountered.

I just don't understand why people can't see deeper into the issue and see how careless and reckless it is to play with others beliefs.

I think that if something someone feels or thinks doesn't hurt you, you have no right to try to change it. It's their personal right, not yours.
Individually we all have so much to work on within ourselves that we really don't have time to try to wake others up, while there's still parts in ourselves that are still in a deep sleep.
If you think that's not true it just shows what a big part of you is still asleep

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:09 PM
reply to post by Byrd

Relation to Christianity
A similarity between Mithra and Christ struck even early observers, such as Justin, Tertullian, and other Fathers, and in recent times has been urged to prove that Christianity is but an adaptation of Mithraism, or at most the outcome of the same religious ideas and aspirations (e.g. Robertson, "Pagan Christs", 1903). Against this erroneous and unscientific procedure, which is not endorsed by the greatest living authority on Mithraism, the following considerations must be brought forward.
(1) Our knowledge regarding Mithraism is very imperfect; some 600 brief inscriptions, mostly dedicatory, some 300 often fragmentary, exiguous, almost identical monuments, a few casual references in the Fathers or Acts of the Martyrs, and a brief polemic against Mithraism which the Armenian Eznig about 450 probably copied from Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) who lived when Mithraism was almost a thing of the past -- these are our only sources, unless we include the Avesta in which Mithra is indeed mentioned, but which cannot be an authority for Roman Mithraism with which Christianity is compared. Our knowledge is mostly ingenious guess-work; of the real inner working of Mithraism and the sense in which it was understood by those who professed it at the advent of Christianity, we know nothing.
(2) Some apparent similarities exist; but in a number of details it is quite probable that Mithraism was the borrower from Christianity. Tertullian about 200 could say: "hesterni sumus et omnia vestra implevimus" ("we are but of yesterday, yet your whole world is full of us"). It is not unnatural to suppose that a religion which filled the whole world, should have been copied at least in some details by another religion which was quite popular during the third century. Moreover the resemblances pointed out are superficial and external. Similarity in words and names is nothing; it is the sense that matters. During these centuries Christianity was coining its own technical terms, and naturally took names, terms, and expressions current in that day; and so did Mithraism. But under identical terms each system thought its own thoughts. Mithra is called a mediator; and so is Christ; but Mithra originally only in a cosmogonic or astronomical sense; Christ, being God and man, is by nature the Mediator between God and man. And so in similar instances. Mithraism had a Eucharist, but the idea of a sacred banquet is as old as the human race and existed at all ages and amongst all peoples. Mithra saved the world by sacrificing a bull; Christ by sacrificing Himself. It is hardly possible to conceive a more radical difference than that between Mithra taurochtonos and Christ crucified. Christ was born of a Virgin; there is nothing to prove that the same was believed of Mithra born from the rock. Christ was born in a cave; and Mithraists worshipped in a cave, but Mithra was born under a tree near a river. Much as been made of the presence of adoring shepherds; but their existence on sculptures has not been proven, and considering that man had not yet appeared, it is an anachronism to suppose their presence.
(3) Christ was an historical personage, recently born in a well-known town of Judea, and crucified under a Roman governor, whose name figured in the ordinary official lists. Mithra was an abstraction, a personification not even of the sun but of the diffused daylight; his incarnation, if such it may be called, was supposed to have happened before the creation of the human race, before all history. The small Mithraic congregations were like masonic lodges for a few and for men only and even those mostly of one class, the military; a religion that excludes the half of the human race bears no comparison to the religion of Christ. Mithraism was all comprehensive and tolerant of every other cult, the Pater Patrum himself was an adept in a number of other religions; Christianity was essential exclusive, condemning every other religion in the world, alone and unique in its majesty.

I have a problem with wikipedia, anyone can make changes to fit their beliefs

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by willyt

That's concurrent horror etc. of secrecy-based government, which wouldn't exist, primarily, if the religious didn't need to be coddled and pandered to like spoiled little kids... IMO.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:11 PM
Awesome Math! The rest of it is very very interesting. Star and Flag!!!!

I have come up with a reading/watch list that I am going through and adding to as new books and videos pop up. If you starred and flagged this thread you may enjoy this reading/watch list.

some of you probably have mention these already:

Zeitgeist 1 and 2
The Zeitgeist Movement
The Venus Project
Esoteric Agenda and Kymatica
The Global Consciousness Project
Thomas Paine "Age of Reason"
Carl Sagan "The Demon-Haunted World"
Look up the meaning of "FAITH" and what it asks of you.....Wiki or any dictionary.
Moustafa Gadalla "Egyptian Divinities"
Alan Alford's Website
AronRa's YouTube Channel (Foundational Falsehoods)
The Sumerians
Doc Childre "The HeartMath Solution"
Institute of HeartMath
Bruce Lipton "The Biology of Belief"
Bruce Lipton Ph.D.

This one I haven't seen yet and don't know too much about it but I should get this movie next week. It looked interesting. Ancient Code - The Movie

I do have a couple of other books I have not read yet that I may add to this list.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by manbird12000

I total disagree with you, however there is nothing wrong in having an opinion right.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Dean Goldberry

DeanGoldberry, IMHO, what people or governments DO with their beliefs, be it Holy wars or what have you, is not how I measure the credibility of that belief.

Religion is about your alignment with Your god, it has nothing to do with the actions of your fellow man or his rationalities.

By using man's rationalities to decide if you should believe in God, you're not only demonstrating complete foolishness, but you are demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about Religion at all.

Your tunnel vision is only revealing to you the things that man does using religion as his drive, and you use Math and scientific method to tidy up your opinion.

it's all sillyness.

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by pop_science

well i don't understand where the agreement on "who cares" comes from. lots of people care. i care because i see original ideas as rare treasures. finding one alone is enough reason to care. the fact that this world even has original ideas in it at all is enough to care.

besides, i like to believe that enlightenment is real. it's a comforting notion to believe that your entire life is part of a sequence of lives. it's much more sensible than some other religions imo.

just because it's nearly impossible to convince anyone of anything is no reason to not find meaning in things for yourself. what if artists didn't care about color and musicians didn't care about sound? what if dr. phil didn't care about putting makeup on his head?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Dean Goldberry
reply to post by willyt

That's concurrent horror etc. of secrecy-based government, which wouldn't exist, primarily, if the religious didn't need to be coddled and pandered to like spoiled little kids... IMO.

Do religious people need to be pandered to like spoiled little kids?

posted on May, 24 2009 @ 05:17 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in