Pidesco

Historically, there is no reason to doubt their existence. Even if the stories of their lives are exaggerated, there is enough archeological evidence to support the time and places as accurate. It makes little sense to completely fabricate an individual and spread the stories across the world and over the centuries. The odds are much greater that these individuals existed. Of course, over time you need to account for events being exaggerated or altered. Much of what we know about these figures was passed down through oral traditions. With Muhammad, the Qu'ran was completed 15 years after his death, so we have a much more accurate account of his life. Abraham and Moses (and I'm not a theological scholar so I could be wrong) is going to be less accurate because the written records available are written much later than their lifetime. I don't think there's any archaeological evidence for the Exodus.

Is it known whether Abraham and Moses actually existed?

You just can't go wrong with Miyazaki. Howl's Moving Castle is great and even so it isn't among his best work.

I think it has been firmly established that Angles existed. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

So how many years of beard growing did that take you? :D

What do you think gays that are exceedingly gay in their mannerisms, Lucius? You know, the ones that follow closely the gay stereotype.

Petra Haden - God Only Knows I can't stop listening to this. Damn you, Drabs! :fistshaker:

His complaints about the combat seem idiotic. Other than that, the guy's probably right.

You're right except for the Timberlake bit.

What?

A faux pas.

Not really. :-" That is not the only reason. Probably the biggest yes, but not the only. What else then? Aside from actual, factual proof I don't see what can affect the establishment of a religion as true or not.

Which means the fundamental truth of a religion depends on one thing alone: the number of people that believes in it. And thus, religion is all statistical bollocks. :D

Then why are Zeus and Thor generally considered to be fictional characters whereas as God is not? More to point why is it considered offensive to criticize someone for believing in God, but not for believing in Thor?

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists. WELL?

Would all the more religious people here please point out what's the difference between believing that God exists and believing that Zeus, or Thor, or whoever exists.

He's saying that non-religious people are, statistically more likely to be highly intelligent, than religious people. This is not a personal attack on anyone, and is true. It stems from the fact that a lot of religions stimulate closemindedness. That is, dogmatic, unassailable beliefs in something.

Where the hell does Dawkins say all these things Moth is accusing him of?

Basically, he says God is as real as any mythological (or rather, fictional) being. And he's right.

Dawkins is right, of course. That doesn't stop me from believing, that a God exists, however.

Well, that depends on who you ask. Christians will certainly say their God is the same as the Jewish God. However, if you ask a Jew he'll say the only true God is the Jewish God.

I know. That's why it amused me. In a real world social setting, it would be called a gaffe.

Beatles - I Want To Tell You Dedicated to Schmartie. Du kan gr

Graxaplozkpl? You just made it up, didn't you?

Allah is the actual translation for the word God.