Arguments Against God (Go Down For With God)

Each of the following arguments aims at showing that some particular conception of a god either is inherently meaningless, contradictory, or contradicts known scientific and/or historical facts, and that therefore a god thus described does not exist.

Empirical arguments (against)
Empirical arguments depend on empirical data in order to prove their conclusions.
"Within the framework of scientific rationalism one arrives at the belief in the nonexistence of God, not because of certain knowledge, but because of a sliding scale of methods. At one extreme, we can confidently rebut the personal Gods of creationists on firm empirical grounds: science is sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there never was a worldwide flood and that the evolutionary sequence of the Cosmos does not follow either of the two versions of Genesis. The more we move toward a deistic and fuzzily defined God, however, the more scientific rationalism reaches into its toolbox and shifts from empirical science to logical philosophy informed by science. Ultimately, the most convincing arguments against a deistic God are Hume's dictum and Occam's razor. These are philosophical arguments, but they also constitute the bedrock of all of science, and cannot therefore be dismissed as non-scientific. The reason we put our trust in these two principles is because their application in the empirical sciences has led to such spectacular successes throughout the last three centuries."
The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the Middle Eastern, Biblical deity called God as described in holy scriptures, such as the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, or the Muslim Qur'an, by identifying contradictions between different scriptures, contradictions within a single scripture, or contradictions between scripture and known facts.
The problem of evil in general, and the logical and evidential arguments from evil in particular contest the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god would not permit the existence of perceivable evil or suffering, which can easily be shown to exist. Already Epicure pointed out the contradiction, stating that if an omnipotent God existed, the evil in the world should be impossible. As there is evil in the world, the god must either not be omnipotent or he must not be omnibenevolent. If he is not omnipotent, he is not God; if he is not omnibenevolent, he is not God the Allmercyful, but an evil creature. Similar arguments have been performed by Schopenhauer.
The argument from poor design contests the idea that a god created life, on the basis that lifeforms exhibit poor or malevolent design, which can be easily explained using evolution and naturalism.
The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent god who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers. This argument is contested by the claim that God wants to test humans to see who has the most faith. However, this assertion is dismissed by the argument surrounding the problem of evil.

Deductive arguments (against)
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.
The omnipotence paradox is one of many arguments which argue that the definitions or descriptions of a god are logically contradictory, demonstrating his non-existence. This paradox can be shown through questions such as: "Can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?" Some may argue that this paradox is resolved by the argument that such a rock is an impossibility of our reality rather than the result of an imperfect God.
One simple argument that the existence of a god is self-contradictory goes as follows: If God is defined as omniscient and omnipotent, then God has absolute knowledge of all events that will occur in the future, including all of his future actions, due to his omniscience. However, his omnipotence implies he has the power to act in a different manner than he predicted, thus implying that God's predictions about the future are fallible. This implies that God is not really omniscient, at least when it comes to knowledge about future events. So a God defined as omniscient and omnipotent cannot exist. Theists may counter that God exists out of time and the premises for this argument are wrong.
The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. If god has already planned the future, then humanity is destined to follow that plan and we do not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore our freewill contradicts an omniscient god.
The Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God contests the existence of an intelligent creator by demonstrating that such a being would make logic and morality contingent, which is incompatible with the presuppositionalist assertion that they are necessary, and contradicts the efficacy of science. A more general line of argument based on TANG, seeks to generalize this argument to all necessary features of the universe and all god-concepts.
The counter-argument against the Cosmological argument ("chicken or the egg") states that if the Universe had to be created by God because it must have a creator, then God, in turn would have had to be created by some other God, and so on. This attacks the premise that the Universe is the second cause, (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause). A common response to this is that God exists outside of time and hence needs no cause. However, such arguments can also be applied to the universe itself - that since time began when the universe did, it is non-sensical to talk about a state "before" the universe which could have caused it, since cause requires time.
Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable and meaningless.
It is alleged that there is a logical impossibility in theism: God is defined as an extra-temporal being, but also as an active creator. The argument suggests that the very act of creation is inconceivable and absurd beyond the restraints of time.

Inductive arguments (against)
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.
The atheist-existentialist argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that since existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie's novel Grimus: "That which is complete is also dead."
The "no reason" argument tries to show that an omnipotent or perfect being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically creating the universe, because it would have no desires since the very concept of desire is subjectively human. As the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is espoused by Scott Adams in the book God's Debris.
God is perfect. God also created man in his image. Man is imperfect, however. Therefore, God is imperfect and thus disproves himself.

Subjective arguments (against)
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. Many people make claims that they have never seen God nor any evidence that God might exist.
The conflicted religions argument where specific to religions give widely differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants. All the contridictory accounts cannot be correct, so many if not all religions must be incorrect.
The Majority argument argues that despite the fact that people in all times and in different places have a similar belief, it is does not make it true (i.e Flat Earth).

Arguments For God

Arguments for the existence of God
A dispute arose as to whether there are a number of proofs of the existence of God or whether all are not merely parts of one and the same proof . While all such proofs would end in the same way, by asserting the existence of God, they do not all start at the same place. St. Thomas calls them aptly Viæ: roads to the apprehension of God which all open on the same highway.


Metaphysical arguments (for)
Metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are arguments that seek to prove the logical necessity of a being with at least one attribute that only God could have.

The Cosmological argument, which argues that God must have been around at the start of things in order to be the "first cause".
The Ontological argument, based on arguments about the "being which nothing greater-than can be conceived".
The Pantheistic argument defines God as All; it is similar to monism and panentheism.
The argument from the mind-body problem postulates that it is impossible to grasp the relation of consciousness to materiality without introducing a divinity.

Empirical arguments (for)
Other arguments avail themselves of data beyond definitions and axioms. For example, some of these arguments require only that one assume that a non-random universe able to support life exists. These arguments include:

The Teleological argument, which argues that the universe's order and complexity shows signs of purpose (telos), and that it must have been designed by an intelligent designer with properties that only a god could have.
The Anthropic argument focuses on basic facts, such as our existence, to prove God.
The Moral argument argues that objective morality exists and that therefore God exists.
The Transcendental argument for the existence of God, which argues that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense if there is no God. Therefore, atheist arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency. By contrast, there is also a Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God.
The Will to Believe Doctrine was pragmatist philosopher William James' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' pragmatic theory of truth where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the hypothetico-deductive method).

Inductive arguments (for)
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain. In order to overcome these difficulties there is necessary either an act of the will, a religious experience, or the discernment of the misery of the world without God, so that finally the heart makes the decision. This view is maintained, among others, by the English statesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?.

Subjective arguments (for)
Subjective arguments mainly rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, or the propositions of a specific revealed religion.

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The religious or Christological argument is specific to religions such as Christianity, and asserts that for example Jesus' life as written in the New Testament establishes his credibility, so we can believe in the truth of his statements about God. An example of this argument is the Trilemma presented by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.
The Majority argument argues that people in all times and in different places have believed in God, so it is unlikely that he does not exist.

Arguments grounded in personal experience
The Scotch School led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by us without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that we accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges us to accept them.
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is "properly basic"--that is, similar to statements such as "I see a chair" or "I feel pain." Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither able to be proved nor disproved; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that our reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to our consciousness and unites them to one another. God's existence, then, cannot be proved--Jacobi, like Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality--it must be felt by the mind.
In his Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when our understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of our hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly to us the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher (died 1834), who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which we feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished us by inner experience, feeling, and perception.
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them we can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the Divine dormant in our subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself to us. In condemnation of this view the oath against Modernism formulated by Pius X says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore His existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of Creation, as the cause is known through its effects.")

Music, Enjoy (''_")

Hot!





Hot!



Hot!

9/11 Conspiracy and the Rise of Martial America

Fastforward this video a bit.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-5946593973848835726&hl=en-CA

A crucial interview with Alex Jones, this movie is VERY long.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6495462761605341661&hl=en-CA

America, the so-called land of the free.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-554962241935608622&hl=en-CA

Is There a God? Proof that there is a God.

If you like this, you'll also like How Do You Prove Jesus Exists? and GOD and SCIENCE.

By Marilyn Adamson

Just once wouldn't you love for someone to simply show you the evidence for God's existence? No arm-twisting. No statements of, "You just have to believe." Well, here is an attempt to candidly offer some of the reasons which suggest that God exists.

But first consider this. If a person opposes even the possibility of there being a God, then any evidence can be rationalized or explained away. It is like if someone refuses to believe that people have walked on the moon, then no amount of information is going to change their thinking. Photographs of astronauts walking on the moon, interviews with the astronauts, moon rocks...all the evidence would be worthless, because the person has already concluded that people cannot go to the moon.

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God.1 On the other hand, for those who want to know God if he is there, he says, "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you."2 Before you look at the facts surrounding God's existence, ask yourself, If God does exist, would I want to know him? Here then, are some reasons to consider...

1. Does God exist? The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today.
Many examples showing God's design could be given, possibly with no end. But here are a few:
The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day.

And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet it restrains our massive oceans from spilling over across the continents.4

Water...colorless, odorless and without taste, and yet no living thing can survive without it. Plants, animals and human beings consist mostly of water (about two-thirds of the human body is water). You'll see why the characteristics of water are uniquely suited to life:

It has an unusually high boiling point and freezing point. Water allows us to live in an environment of fluctuating temperature changes, while keeping our bodies a steady 98.6 degrees.

Water is a universal solvent. This property of water means that thousands of chemicals, minerals and nutrients can be carried throughout our bodies and into the smallest blood vessels.5

Water is also chemically neutral. Without affecting the makeup of the substances it carries, water enables food, medicines and minerals to be absorbed and used by the body.

Water has a unique surface tension. Water in plants can therefore flow upward against gravity, bringing life-giving water and nutrients to the top of even the tallest trees.

Water freezes from the top down and floats, so fish can live in the winter.

Ninety-seven percent of the Earth's water is in the oceans. But on our Earth, there is a system designed which removes salt from the water and then distributes that water throughout the globe. Evaporation takes the ocean waters, leaving the salt, and forms clouds which are easily moved by the wind to disperse water over the land, for vegetation, animals and people. It is a system of purification and supply that sustains life on this planet, a system of recycled and reused water.6

2. Does God exist? The human brain's complexity shows a higher intelligence behind it.
The human brain...simultaneously processes an amazing amount of information. Your brain takes in all the colors and objects you see, the temperature around you, the pressure of your feet against the floor, the sounds around you, the dryness of your mouth, even the texture of your keyboard. Your brain holds and processes all your emotions, thoughts and memories. At the same time your brain keeps track of the ongoing functions of your body like your breathing pattern, eyelid movement, hunger and movement of the muscles in your hands.

The human brain processes more than a million messages a second.7 Your brain weighs the importance of all this data, filtering out the relatively unimportant. This screening function is what allows you to focus and operate effectively in your world. A brain that deals with more than a million pieces of information every second, while evaluating its importance and allowing you to act on the most pertinent information... did it come about just by chance? Was it merely biological causes, perfectly forming the right tissue, blood flow, neurons, structure? An astounding an organ that it is, it surpasses being functional. There is an intelligence to it, the ability to reason, feel, move and relate. How does one explain the human brain?

3. Does God exist? "Chance" or "natural causes" are insufficient explanations.
The alternative to God existing is that all that exists around us came about by natural cause and random chance. It someone is rolling dice, the odds of rolling a pair of sixes is one thing. But the odds of spots appearing on blank dice is something else. Pasteur proved centuries ago (and science still confirms it) that life cannot arise from non-life. Where did human, animal, plant life come from?
Also, natural causes are an inadequate explanation for the amount of precise information contained in human DNA. A person who discounts God is left with the conclusion that all of this came about without cause, without design, and is merely good fortune. It is intellectually wanting to observe intricate design and attribute it to luck.


4. Does God exist? To state with certainty that there is no God, a person has to ignore the passion of an enormously vast number of people who are convinced that there is a God.
This is not to say that if enough people believe something it is therefore true. Science, for example, have discovered new truths about the universe which overruled previous conclusions. But as science has progressed, no scientific discovery has countered the numerical likelihood of an intelligent mind being behind it all. In fact, the more science discovers about human life and the universe, the more complex and precisely designed we realize these to be. Rather than pointing away from God, evidence mounts further toward an intelligent source. But objective evidence is not all.
There is a much larger issue. Throughout history, billions of people in the world have attested to their firm, core convictions about God's existence--arrived at from their subjective, personal relationship with God. Millions today could give detailed account of their experience with God. They would point to answered prayer and specific, amazing ways God has met their needs, and guided them through important personal decisions. They would offer, not only a description of their beliefs, but detailed reports of God's actions in their lives. Many are sure that a loving God exists and has shown himself to be faithful to them. If you are a skeptic, can you say with certainty: "I am absolutely right and they all are wrong about God"?


5. Does God exist? We know God exists because he pursues us. He is constantly initiating and seeking for us to come to him.
I was an atheist at one time. And like most atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, disillusioned people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me.


6. Does God exist? Unlike any other revelation of God, Jesus Christ is the clearest, most specific picture of God pursuing us.
Why Jesus? Look throughout the major world religions and you'll find that Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius and Moses all identified themselves as teachers or prophets. None of them ever claimed to be equal to God. Surprisingly, Jesus did. That is what sets Jesus apart from all the others. He said God exists and you're looking at Him. Though He talked about His Father in heaven, it was not from the position of separation, but of very close union, unique to all humankind. Jesus said that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father, anyone who believed in Him, believed in the Father.
He said, "I am the light of the world, he who follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."8 He claimed attributes belonging only to God: to be able to forgive people of their sin, free them from habits of sin, give people a more abundant life and give them eternal life in heaven. Unlike other teachers who focused people on their words, Jesus pointed people to himself. He did not say, "follow my words and you will find truth." He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me."9

What proof did Jesus give for claiming to be divine? He did what people can't do. Jesus performed miracles. He healed people...blind, crippled, deaf, even raised a couple of people from the dead. He had power over objects...created food out of thin air, enough to feed crowds of several thousand people. He performed miracles over nature...walked on top of a lake, commanding a raging storm to stop for some friends. People everywhere followed Jesus, because He constantly met their needs, doing the miraculous. He said if you do not want to believe what I'm telling you, you should at least believe in me based on the miracles you're seeing.10

Jesus Christ showed God to be gentle, loving, aware of our self-centeredness and shortcomings, yet deeply wanting a relationship with us. Jesus revealed that although God views us as sinners, worthy of his punishment, his love for us ruled and God came up with a different plan. God himself took on the form of man and accepted the punishment for our sin on our behalf. Sounds ludicrous? Perhaps, but many loving fathers would gladly trade places with their child in a cancer ward if they could. The Bible says that the reason we would love God is because he first loved us.

Jesus died in our place so we could be forgiven. Of all the religions known to humanity, only through Jesus will you see God reaching toward humanity, providing a way for us to have a relationship with him. Jesus proves a divine heart of love, meeting our needs, drawing us to himself. Because of Jesus' death and resurrection, he offers us a new life today. We can be forgiven, fully accepted by God and genuinely loved by God. He says, "I have loved you with an everlasting love, therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you."11 This is God, in action.

Does God exist? If you want to know, investigate Jesus Christ. We're told that "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."12

God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique chemical properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.

How do you prove Jesus existed?

This is what is on the minds of many people today. If you like the below please refer to GOD and SCIENCE. It is taken from CNN, please leave your view and comments on the subject.

It takes about one-and-a-half hours to drive from the center of Rome to the tiny town of Viterbo, Italy. With reporter Delia Gallagher, photojournalist Claudio, and our driver, Alfredo, we made our way through the hills of this ancient Etruscan town on our way to see a man with a very controversial cause.Luigi Cascioli is suing the Catholic Church. He says he wants them to show proof that Jesus Christ actually existed.As we drive up the road to his old stone house, my first impression is that this lifelong atheist is not at all what I expected. I'm not sure why. Perhaps as a Roman Catholic I thought he'd have horns and a tail? Instead, a robust, friendly septuagenarian approached the car to welcome us, accompanied by his dog, Pluto.He says he has dedicated his life to bringing down the Catholic Church, and he's spent years of his life researching his subject. He says there was, in fact, no Jesus, but a military man named John of Gamala who lived in the time of Christ. And, he claims, it was the gospel writers who turned that mere mortal into the character of Jesus, a figure powerful enough on which to base an entire religion.Cascioli's lawsuit is based on two points of Italian law. One makes it illegal to "abuse the popular credulity." The second outlaws impersonating another person. The chain-smoking, former construction worker speaks only Italian, and he doesn't mince words. He calls the Catholic Church leaders "con men," and says "they take advantage of the popular belief."He began his case in 2002, suing a local Viterbo priest, Father Enrico Righi. He says he chose Father Righi because the law prevents him from suing the Pope, who is a head of state. But his case was rejected by the Italian courts time and time again. So why is Luigi Cascioli so interesting now? Because the European Court of Human Rights has agreed to consider hearing his case.That means, at some future date, leaders of the Catholic Church may be called upon to present hard evidence that there once was a man named Jesus Christ. The question is, in this age of DNA testing and CSI drama, how do you prove a man existed more than 2,000 years ago using nothing but the written word?

As a lifelong Catholic who benefits from faith rather than a life of doubt, I ask why should any believer have to prove anything? Why is this man getting so much ink? Cascioli's the lawbreaker since the "popular credulity" is a faith in a higher power and he is trying to abuse it with this absurd lawsuit. If this makes it to court, the world must be on a downward spiral.
Posted By Paige B., Austin, TX : 6:51 PM ET

You prove Jesus exist through FAITH. He is trying to use his limited intelligence. If you followed the instructions that's outlined in the Holy Bible, he wouldn't waste the courts time or anyone else'. You must be born again and believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, died and arose on the third day. This is spiritually discerned.
Posted By Ann Thomas, Seattle, WA : 6:57 PM ET

Well, I don't know. I've been a trial lawyer for 26 years and a Catholic for more than that. Although there is much I disagree with the Church on, it seems to me that the burden is on Mr. Cascioli to prove He didn't exist.Were I the judge on the case, I would have an easy resolution to it. "Mr. Cascioli, when you die, if you find out for sure that Jesus did not exist, you come on back to this court and I'll hear your case."
Posted By Jim Conrad, Charlotte, NC : 6:59 PM ET

I think that Cascioli's lawsuit is just fine. There are a lot of people in the world who don't believe in Christianity and other Organized Religions. I think that Agnostics, those who believe that God/Creator may exist or may not who knows? We don't have much of a say and we have to follow the rigid outdated Conservative Christian/Muslim/Etc Relgious customs because they hold power in politics and the minds of the masses. Cascioli is just fighting for the right to not believe. Which most people get very angry over!
Posted By scott pratt nyc ny : 7:00 PM ET

Ann from Seattle:Why must someone be limited in intelligence not to believe in something that has so little evidence? I might respond that those on the other side of the coin are quite nieve to simply believe everything they read in the Bible, no matter how ridiculous it sounds (people raised from the dead...right).I'll probably be the only poster today that agrees with this guy and his quest to prove what religion is all about...money!
Posted By Jack, Chicago : 7:05 PM ET

Why would a person dedicate there life to bring down the catholic church. Faith is about believing in something that can't be proven. I feel this man is ignorant. If he doesn't have faith, thats his personal right. Why preach it to others.
Posted By Sarah Farner, Newport, Mi : 7:07 PM ET

The story of Christ is closer to pagan mythology than reality. Since the four gospels of the New Testament were written by individuals who never knew Christ, and were voted upon by committee as in the case of the rest of the Bible's chapters, they are by definition heresay. As Thomas Paine wrote in his book The Age of Reason the Bible and Christianity are both without authenticity, and therefore without authority.
Posted By V Zifka, Sumner, WA : 7:12 PM ET

I applaud Luigi Cascioli's efforts. Religion is the ultimate con, intended to control the masses, placate them and make them more controllable. If you "follow the instructions that's[sic] outlined in the Holy Bible" as Ann points out, you'll end up with what we've already got. A world full of holy wars, death, misery, and destruction, all in the name of a non-existent god. Have you sacrificed your clean male Ram today, Ann? When was the last time you stoned a rape victim to death? The bible says to do these things. Are you doing them? I didn't think so. It's a crock.
Posted By Jeff, Oak Harbor, WA : 7:15 PM ET

You go, Luigi Cascioli. There are far too many people willing to let other people tell them what to think and believe. Exercising a healthy skepticism is something people should do daily, whether it relates to their spiritual life, their personal life or - perhaps most importantly - their civic life. When people ask you to take what they're telling you 'on faith', look carefully and see what it's going to cost you. Because it WILL cost you.
Posted By Arachnae, Sterling VA : 7:15 PM ET

I appluad this man. He is not one of the masses blindly following what others have said previous. Faith is one thing. Have faith. But don't tell me something is fact when there is no proof. Faith does not equal proof.
Posted By Annon, Bethlehem PA : 7:15 PM ET

I can understand how he might be able to sue under the first law, but I am completely baffled by the second. If Jesus doesn't exist, then the Catholic Church isn't really impersonating anyone, is it? He'd also have to prove that the people who belong to the Catholic Church are actually being harmed by this "con" - something that will be impossible to prove.
Posted By Alex Robinson, Columbia, South Carolina : 7:16 PM ET

Here we go again! Everyone "knows" that what the Bible says is true! How does everyone "know" this? Because the Bible says so, of course!
Posted By Mike McDowell, Greentown, Indiana : 7:17 PM ET

Please review the works of Josh McDowell in "More Than A Carpenter". Also, see the writings of C.S. Lewis, such as "The Screw Tape Lettters". Both these men were atheists and out to discount the historical Jesus. I accepted Christ as Savior at age 12 and learned the scientific method in college and go from there.- Gary Hahn in KentuckyHebrews 12:1,2
Posted By Gary Hahn, Lexington, Kentucky : 7:18 PM ET

My faith in Christ is based on rock-solid historical evidence of the caliber that well-exceeds the proofs we have of many historical figures and events that we take for granted.We have earlier, more reliable, and a greater number of manuscripts that attest to Christ's existence, ministry and - yes - even resurrection than exist for most other aspects of classical history. The books of the New Testament, in fact, were written by Christ's contemporaries whose "stretching of the truth" in any measure could have been quickly refuted, thus squelching any Messiah myths before they could propagate. Even liberal scholars date some books to within the lifespan or at least a generation of Christ's contemporaries. Plus, there is the evidence of Christ's followers breaking more than a milennium of tradition to switch their day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. And then there are the martyrs. People will die for what they think is the truth. But few will die for what they know is a lie.I think anyone who honestly examines the evidence will not only believe Christ was an historical figure but that he was God in the flesh and the provision for our salvation. I know that I came to faith based NOT on subjective feeling, but on scrutiny of the facts. At that point, it become a battle of the will (apart from the intellect) to believe.We need to be careful and avoid falling into the faith/fact false dichotomy. Faith is necessary. But the Christian's faith is grounded in objective fact and we musn't forget that - no matter what a subjective, agenda-driven "scholar" or others might claim.
Posted By Brian S, Keene, NH : 7:19 PM ET

I don't really see the point of the suit. I doubt that much of what we attribute to Jesus actually existed or happend, but proving or disproving that is a waste of time. To take this one step further, what physical, tangible, or otherwise admissible (in a court of law) evidence do we have that Plato existed? And did Shakespeare exist (or were all his works written by Francis Bacon, or some other author)? Sillines.
Posted By Christopher Dunn, Chicago, IL : 7:19 PM ET

It's a worthy cause to validate the historical accuracy of Jesus.For those who are dyed-in-the wool believers, what do they have to fear? Afterall, they're banking their eternal soul on being right, so what's a little historical research?If it turns out that the whole Christian history was a fabrication, just a pleasant fireside myth spun to create a political movement to fight regional governments, wouldn't it be better to live in the light of knowledge, rather than the dimness of self-delusion?
Posted By Andew, Pittsburgh : 7:19 PM ET

What an interesting case. Mr. Casciol is a persistent man and one to be admired. Obviously he will not be able to prove that Jesus of Nasareth didn't exist but he could prove that the gospel writers trumped up a phony story to benefit their cause. People of faith will never understand his complaint as it challenges their fundimental reason to exist and they will not see any benefit in even considering his arguments. The natural order produces people like Mr. Casciol to provide equilibrium for our species. If we were all "believers" we would be killing each other 24/7. Hooray for the European Court of Human Rights.
Posted By Earthling William Bergmann, Hollywood, CA : 7:22 PM ET

I applaud this effort to reveal one of the worlds great mythologies as just that. The Catholic Church has long hidden the truth of this myth, a myth that has controlled the minds of men for more than 2000 years. There is no more proof of Jesus then there is of Odin, Athena or Isis. In fact the story of Jesus can be traced directly to Egyptian mythology and the story of Horus. Christians are doing themselves a dis-service to not at least learn the story of Horus before dismissing this important intellectual movement. It is time to throw down the chains of religious oppression and mythology.
Posted By Todd Williamson, San Diego , CA : 7:25 PM ET

While Cascioli may not believe in Christ, he definitely proves the existance of the devil, only the devil could compel someone to such action. It is the that devil tries to lead us away from God (which he has so successfully done with Cascioli), not frivolous lawsuits. Those of us who are Christians and have FAITH will give this gentleman little regard, aside from praying for his apparent lost soul.
Posted By Maria M., Sacramento, CA : 7:27 PM ET

I am not a religious person but I am not against religions either. Any religion can be good and evil. I always think the bible is a great book written by a great writer or writers with fictitious characters. I do agree with Cascioli that a lot of people would like to know if Jesus really existed. But I will not go so far as suing the Catholic church.Comment from Ann Thomas is exactly why a person with scientific mind cannot accept. You cannot prove someone exist through faith.
Posted By Jonathan, Cupertino, CA : 7:27 PM ET

Prove to me that Plato existed. Or Aristotle. Or Odysseus. Or Alexander the Great. There's as much or far more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed as any of these other "historical" figures. What an idiotic waste of time and resources...
Posted By Don, Portland, OR : 7:27 PM ET

Well this certainly should take everybodys mind off of the flood of illegal immigrants coming into the country!As for the actual question of whether Jesus Crist existed it is a matter of faith. Whether he existed, or whether he is a fictional character created to foster a belief system based on Jewish tradition doesn't really matter. A Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist who respects life, who tries to help his fellow man, who leaves the world a better place than when he came into it, is surely quaranteed a place in heaven, if it exists, and if it doesn't they will have still enriched the lives of those people they leave behind. The lawsuit makes for great comic releif and I hope CNN will cover the trail when it starts!
Posted By Jim, San Luis Obispo, Ca. : 7:27 PM ET

Faith is simply believing that what you want to be true, really is true, regardless of the lack of evidence. In a day when Internet scams and urban legends are enormously successful, simply because they're taken at face value without question, it's obvious that a little more reliance on logic and proof is exactly what's needed. Mr. Cascioli is addressing a problem which has existed for thousands of years, and should be commended for his efforts.
Posted By L.C., Carmel, NY : 7:29 PM ET

It may be impossible to prove that Jesus existed, but it is relatively easy to prove that he did not exist. See The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy or The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? by Earl Doherty. There is no credible evidence that Jesus ever existed!
Posted By Malcolm LeFever- Minneapolis, MN : 7:29 PM ET

This italian man is trying to use a language to prove Jesus existence, which is very different from the one Jesus spokes, which is something we all know and may be found in the Bible: Love. Science, law, etc, will never understand this.
Posted By Bill Paxton, New York : 7:29 PM ET

It is useless to try to prove anything in a Religion. The very nature of faith omits room for any information that would shatter that faith. So, who cares if Jesus exsisted or not, those who wish to subject themselves to the slavery of the Catholic Church should do so and be quiet about it. They choose to follow a faith whose administrators allowed abuse of children. These sorts of people would make up proof anyway, so this is a useless waste of time. From an historical view, the exsistance of Jesus and now, the facts or fiction in the recent movie, The Davincie Code, this may prove very interesting,but not worthy of wasting a court's time.Blind faith often leads to trouble. Many have said that the most killings of one human to another were over some idiotic religious belief. Look at the Taliban, the most extreme example now. They would kill us all, thinking we are all idiot Christians with that stupid smiling, empty-headed grin.Of course, we are all free to worship or not. Who cares? I say, stop killing people for what they choose to believe, live your life in a good way, and get on with it. Stop giving your money to the Catholic Pedifile Church.Disgusting.
Posted By Patrick Green, Bowling Green, VA : 7:29 PM ET

What is the Catholic Church afraid of? If, in their city of historical documents and artifacts, they cannot prove the existence of Jesus, then who could do so?This gentleman from Italy is not asking the Church to prove that Jesus is the son of God. He simply wants evidence that Jesus existed. As such, earlier comments about "faith" are irrelevant.It is reasonable to ask the Church to come forward with the evidence.
Posted By Robert, Emeryville, CA : 7:30 PM ET

Sure, he existed, and poof! There is the sun, and poof! There is the Earth. Poof! Poof!It doesn't make sense. Why do I see so many Pastor's driving Cadillac's? Because people have Faith...
Posted By Jake, Tucson AZ : 7:30 PM ET

The fact that billions of people believe in Jesus is a significant piece of evidence in proving Jesus existed. Are all of these people deluded? Of course not, and many of them are extremely intelligent people. Also, just take a look around at the magnificient cathedrals that have taken people decades to build and think about the level of committment that effort took, and ask yourself, doesn't that prove something? How about the fact that many people are willing to die for the belief that Jesus existed or have languished in Communist prisions just because they beleive in Jesus? This is all evidence of His existence. The Bible itself is proof, and I do not mean to claim it is divinely inspired, just the fact that it has been the most enduring, widely read book in all the history of man. Why? these things are all proof to some extent and help provide support for faith.
Posted By Jim Lindsay, Los Angeles, CA. : 7:31 PM ET

UMMMM..."believing" something is real doesn't "make" it real...you can already tell by the 2 comments abovethat there's not much substance to the "belief", other than how strongly people need this mythology in their lives...-bryan, las vegas.
Posted By Bryan Las Vegas NV : 7:31 PM ET

As a Muslim who does believe that Jesus the Christ existed, I have to say that the above two comments are exactly why this person brought about this lawsuit. "You must be born again"? In this day and this age of science and rational thinking, such statements aren't going to convince the common person of anything.
Posted By Fareed, Manassas, Virginia : 7:32 PM ET

How does one prove the existance of Jesus, who lived 2,000 years ago. The written word is quite the hard evidence that so many misinterepret as a book of rules and fanciful thinking. They don't see what it really is. That it is Historical documentation of the relationship between The GOD of the universe and the Israelites. Also, of the creation and eventual conclusion of the way things are on Earth.As a Born-Again Christian, and one-time agnostic, I can (to a certain extent) understand the thinking of one who does not have the faith to trust God and Jesus. YES, the Bible has things in there that take Faith to believe, and all we as Christians have to back up our claims is a book and our own faith.If one needs any tangable proof, I say look around you!! Look at how the world is set up, look at DNA, look at how the world is perfectly balanced. The evidence is all around us. All you need to do is open your eyes, and you will see all that was made is through Jesus!! As stated in Scriptures.
Posted By C. Sellman , Oakland, CA. : 7:34 PM ET

I feel it telling that Christians must rely on claims of faith to support Christ's existence in lieu of any actual facts. We can't prove Christ on faith alone. If I could believe someone into existence, then first on my list is Kool-Aid Man.
Posted By David Willis, Columbus, OH : 7:35 PM ET

How do you prove anyone from that long ago existed? How do you prove Nero or Atilla or Julius Caesar existed? All you have to go on in any of those cases is written word. No matter who or how many wrote about a certain individual, asking anyone to prove without doubt they existed is ludicrous. For this absurd challenge to even be heard by a court of law opens courts up to any case of any kind and is a waste of the courts time and the taxpayers money.
Posted By Steve M. Appleton Wisconsin : 7:38 PM ET

Hmmm, if all Catholics believed that FAITH and faith only was all they needed, then why are they the first people trying to ban movies, books and anything else that happens to show any type of FAITH on any other belief than that of the Roman church. Self centered weak minded people that must "force" their beliefs on others, because they themselves really just arn't sure......Does he deserve to win a law suit, absolutely not....does he have a point, sure! Billions of people believe in writings and word of FAITH from the Catholic church, where they are not allowed to question it. It doesn't hurt to have others question it. If you really, really believe that Jesus and the bible are fact, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about! FAITH is all you need! :-)
Posted By Mike Milson, London, ON : 7:38 PM ET

The lawsuit is frivolous in the extreme. And if this man were a little more intelligent, he would sue for proof of God, not Jesus Christ. If he were slightly more intelligent than a stump, he would know that this lawsuit is an attention getting ploy that can only backfire on him.Whether one is a believer or not, there are secondary sources outside of the New Testament that tell of a man called Jesus of Nazareth that was crucified on official orders. Everyone can agree that he existed, even if they cannot agree on what he really was. God might be a different story. But that's another argument for another day, and it would still make for a frivolous lawsuit.
Posted By Marby L. , Austin, TX : 7:40 PM ET

Debora:Luigi Cascioli should dedicate his life to bringing some good to the world like helping with world peace or hunger instead of trying to bring down a Religion.Faith is the true key to ones Religion or spirituality. If we start losing this important key to Religion, this world is truly doomed.Now I think the issue of suing has gone little too far. Suing a Religion?
Posted By Vicki, Long Island : 7:42 PM ET

The previous posters are using 'faith' as an excuse not to answer the question. Faith in this case translates to belief without evidence. If someone told you that they believe in faries at the bottom of their garden because of 'faith' then you might not think that a very plausible reason. This matters because of the political and financial power that the Catholic church has around the world. For instance, their opposition to contraception, which arguably has caused 100's of 1000s of deaths. Also, the Catholic church has covered up for child abusers in their ranks. It's time to question their power.
Posted By Christian JB, Houston, TX : 7:43 PM ET

The followers of western religion should be required to show some evidence. While I do not agree with Luidi Cascioli's belief that Christ never existed, I have doubts about what the modern day Bible and leaders of western religion have to say about him. I do believe that, as Dan Brown mentions in The Da Vinci Code, that the religious leaders have everything to gain by keeping people scared and 'guiding them' to the principles that are of their own making - NOT Christ's.Beliving in religion is generally not a bad thing for many people but there are many who use it to a bad end. So many people have died as a result of their religious beliefs. The Bush administration too often gives the appearance that religion guides their every decision and those decision have been generally bad for the nation and the world.It's odd that the country where people came to escape religious persecution eventually grew into a nation of such cruel, misguided, and violent religious villians. I was raised Catholic but I have nothing but contempt for the whole lot anymore. I believe that Jesus would be ashamed of the state of the religion that has used his name in an obvious attempt to control masses for personal gain rather than enlightenment.
Posted By William Slifko, Tokyo : 7:45 PM ET

who's to say he's wrong?!? Everyone or almost everyone knows how corrupt the catholic church is/was. The thing with christians is they refuse to open there minds to entertain thoughts of anything that goes against the "bible" or the church. He could be 100% wrong, or he could be right. "Faith" if thats what people call it determines that. Myself being a devout follower of Belial find it fascinating talking to christians about topics such as this. Just because i am a Satanist does not mean im ignorant to people or jesus...i respect your right to follow the path you do. but atleast i entertain the thought of a man made/shaped relgion.
Posted By Brad, Edmonton, Canada : 7:48 PM ET

This man has obviously gotten to a point in his life where he is worried that no one will remember him. What is the point of this? Even if it was possible to track down historical records, which don't exist in such copious amounts for that time period, and prove that Jesus existed, is that really his concern? Or is it that he doesn't choose to believe that Jesus was God? After all, what difference does it make whether or not the man existed if he wasn't who he claimed to be? And if that's the question, then it is a matter of faith, not empirical scientific evidence. This man is just looking for attention; let's not give him what he wants by continuing to cover this story.
Posted By L. Baker, Indianapolis : 7:49 PM ET

"Faith" has nothing to do with proof. It is interesting how the first two commentors choose to verbally attack Luigi Cascioli for his beliefs. Sadly, this is all to typical of organized religion.
Posted By Ryan Bouslaugh Medford OR : 7:51 PM ET

Unless Mr. Cascioli can prove the non-existence of God, then all he has is his Faith that there is no God. His Atheist Faith against the Faith of the Christian Churches as well as Judaism and Islam.Atheism is as much a Faith as any religion, a fact Mr. Cascioli seems unaware of.Since there are writings going back almost to the day of Jesus Christ, His existence has far better proof than that of God.
Posted By Keith Rosenberg Rancho Cordova, California : 7:51 PM ET

I have faith, faith that jesus was not a 6 foot, blue eyed white guy born in the middle east. a man just like you and I, nothing more.
Posted By tony charleston sc : 7:51 PM ET

It is as easy to prove that Jesus existed as it is to prove that Julius Caesar or any other historical figure existed. There are texts that talk about him, including texts that are not part of the Bible, by ancient authors like Josephus and Tacitus. If one were to assume that Julius Caesar was mere legend, then there are historical events that are difficult to explain, such as the Roman conquest of Gaul and the transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. In the same way, if there were no historical Jesus, it would be impossible to explain the historical emergence of Christianity.What cannot be proven by historical methods is that Jesus was God. That can be known only by faith. But that Jesus existed as a historical personage is beyond question, just as Buddha, Mohammed, and other founders of religions were definitely historical figures who actually existed.
Posted By P. Grant, Hopewell NJ : 7:53 PM ET

Organized religion is a sham. The Cathlioc Church is the most corrupt institution in the histroy of man. indulgences, holy wars, inqusitions, child molestation... the list goes on. Its about time someone questioned these "con men" and put them on trial for their "sins"
Posted By Nick, Cincinnati, OH : 7:53 PM ET

Mr. Lifelong Studier of Jesus' Existence apparently missed the reams of information available that make said existence a near-undeniable proof. What amazes me is the sudden resurgance of "conspiracy" theorists that allege that the church formed itself on a hoax in order to gain power. This is ridiculous on so many levels that most people give such banter credence simply because they couldn't fathom such wild accusations making it into the mainstream unless there were truth behind it. Here's a pointed example: over 2,000 manuscripts exist which comprise the basis of the modern day New Testament, all written within the first one hundred to five hundred years of the actions depicted. Modern people scoff at wide timeline, but fail to realize that for an Ancient Near Eastern document (or any document for that matter), there is more evidence in those documents than for any manuscript in all of human history. The earliest existing copy of the Quran was written over six hundred years after the original, with no known counterparts (and the Quran itself was written over a half-century after the New Testament). This was not coordinated by a central church authority, it was the simple spread of a movement among the grass-roots of its day. The widespread debates that existed in the early church are the very signs that show its inherent power, because the early Christians were the ones that worked out the doctrines, not the Catholic Church that followed in their wake! The burden of proof is to prove Jesus did not exist, not vice versa. How could an organization propagate a lie when it had yet to exist for another eight hundred years?
Posted By Elijah Horton, Kinston, NC : 7:57 PM ET

How do you prove Napoleon existed? I think that tomb in Paris really has a fake body in it...Wait let me call Dan Brown, I smell a great story line coming...
Posted By Peter Norman, Sayville, NY : 7:58 PM ET

Jesus exists in the same way that the catholic religion God exist and for that matter any God that exists in any religion, and it is thru faith and believing with out any doubt. Which in todays world of DNA testing, computer, science, technology and all that stuff just means that they are starting to die out. That "faith in religion", in the "believe in anything we tell you" is slowing down because of modern civilization inquiry, wonder and research into anything. It's like taking a look at a picture book of humanity and see how it is evolving, first the believe in many Gods, then substitue all of them for one God, then put that God on earth and then figure out there really wasn't such a thing it was just us making it up to not feel so lonely and while we grew out of adolescence era
Posted By Ernest, San Diego, California : 7:59 PM ET

I am agnostic, and think that suing someone because of his belief is reprehensible.Cascioli is suing for "impersonation". Does he really think the Catholic church doesn't believe in Jesus Christ but pretends to get some money? If on the other hand he thinks they are just misguided, their belief is none of his business.Freedom of speech and religion is about protecting one's beliefs, not enforcing them onto others.
Posted By Larry, Somerville, MA : 8:00 PM ET

Paige B. asks "why should any believer have to prove anything?"The answer is that public policy is imposed on everyone, even those smart enough to separate fiction and parable from fact. So, before laws that derive from religious fantasy are enforced -- generally at the end of a gun -- we should open the public debate on the issue. A court of law (where evidence is required rather than fairy stories) would be an ideal place for this.
Posted By John G., New York, NY : 8:00 PM ET

How do we prove that Plato, Aristotle or Socrates - whose teachings form the basis for Western thought, philosophy and psychology - ever existed for that matter. Although the study of atiquities has never turned up a single original writing of either man . . . or of their student for that matter. On the other hand, those same scholars have catalogued over 5000 Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic writings of people who witnessed Christ's life - some dating within 60 years of his death.
Posted By Steve Kinstler, San Francisco : 8:01 PM ET

I applaud Casciloli. He is a man who is not afraid to speak his mind and stand for those not in the majority opinion. He is a man who is not afraid to step outside the box and think for himself, using reason and evidence. The only way to find the truth is to seek evidence and be opinion to all opinions. It is never wise to follow blindly without any reason besides "mommy said so."
Posted By Publius, St. Paul, MN : 8:01 PM ET

Poster Sarah Farner says:"Why would a person dedicate there life to bring down the catholic church. Faith is about believing in something that can't be proven. I feel this man is ignorant. If he doesn't have faith, thats his personal right. Why preach it to others."Did you think before you wrote this? "Why preach it to others" Isn't that exactly what the church does. And you call Luigi ignorant. Typical response from someone with "faith" And this is the very problem because we have right now a majority of people on the planet that are incapable of reason. It's astonishing really when you think about it. Hey I hate to break the news to you...the earth is not flat.
Posted By Trevor, Los Angeles, CA : 9:09 PM ET

I was raised a Christian. my father was a Fransiscan brother, who left the order before meeting my mother and they had five children. They both came from somewhat affluent families that valued religion, education and a love of the arts. We all had our perfect and not-so-perfect moments, like anyone else. We also had a cousin who was a monsignor. Both, my Dad and he told stories about ancient documents,in addition to the bible, they saw or heard about that seemed to authenticate the existence of Jesus and the apostles. There's also the Shroud of Turin and The Holy Grail,which some consider to be folklore. Maybe there's an inherent belief system in most of us that is part of a religious collective unconscious from our ancestors. The man in your blog article has the right to his beliefs (or disbelief in this case) like anyone else but why take it to the level he is? Is he trying to gain some notoriety like Madeline Murray O.? By the way, my grandfather and his friend worked part of their lives as art restorators.His friend and his wife were kind & hardworking people, who also happened to be atheists. My mother still has the Pegasus they gave her years ago.
Posted By Carol B. Frederick, MD : 9:13 PM ET

I think this whole arguement is pointless! Even if Jesus existed (and I believe he did)the concept of a higher power is obviously a neurological disorder that affects the vast majority of the world.I'm sure if he were alive today he'd condemn religious belief in favor of science.He was clearly more intelligent than most people today.
Posted By Ed, Ellenville NY : 9:16 PM ET

well I suppose it's nothing then that can make a group of people go out and "create" a religon based on someone who didnt exist, be persecuted for a non exsistant person. I suppose the Romans just decide Well lets persecute this group of Christians for fun.. Oh I forgot perhaps the Holocaust didnt exist either..issue is not wether or not you believe in jesus or God, but wether or not they believe in you.
Posted By Roger , Long Valley,NJ : 9:21 PM ET

Seems like athiests spend a little too much time worrying about someone they don't believe in...get a life!
Posted By Thom, Philadelphia, PA : 9:24 PM ET

Go for it. The Catholic Church is so filled with hypocrisy that the whole basis of that church is crap. Take divorce and annulments. They say it's a sin to divorce but over 60,000 people got annulments last years. As usual, money talked in the Catholic Church, hang the jerks.
Posted By Richard Washington DC : 9:26 PM ET

while applauding casciloli's courage to stick with his determination, i have a solution to all religion's problems: let's start a new one called OTH, short for Orthodox Tempered Hedonism, the on being (1) responsibility for your own behavior, (2) helping your fellow man and taking care of the planet, and (3) celebrating life in positive fashion...think of it...no more war or famine...only feasts and joy...janet daganhonolulu, hawaii
Posted By janet dagan, honolulu, hawaii : 9:28 PM ET

Go ahead and sue. I'd like to see the outcome of this. Did Jesus actually exist? Previous commentors elude to the fact that all we need to do is look around and see evidence of the life of Christ. Through the churches, etc. that are erected in his name. What in the hell does that mean? It means nothing. Look around and you see evidence of a creator of some sort......Duh! Like the forces of nature, in my view would be the 'God' of the Universe. Now, I'd say that is tangible! But, whether Jesus Christ ever existed, whether he was the son of God.....makes absolutely no difference in the whole scheme of things really. The Bible could not be the word of God, as the Christians say. If you want to use the word 'God' as being the creator of the Universe, he (it) certainly didn't speak through words. If you want to spout the 'written word' as something to believe in, then check the written words that claim organized religions were formed to control the masses. It is all about $$$ people. Plain and simple. Politics of the day and $$$. I think it is high time, the majority took their head out of the sand and rationally thought this through. No more of this herd mentality. Too many religious wars, too many lives lost. Just going along to get along doesn't get it.
Posted By Roxanne Herman Clearwater, Florida : 9:29 PM ET

All ye sensible people behold the truth.Even after 2000 years, it is not possible that this man Jesus Christ continues to create the mass hysteria and hallucination you all suspect.Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Buddha, and many others truly walked this earth.Almighty God, Allah, Shiva, Zeus.. now that's another story... Quantum Physics and beyond point to TIME as 'embodiment' of all the qualities of god. Eternal, Omnipresent, Omnipotent... remember: with time ALL is possible.
Posted By L. Ostertag Chicago, IL : 9:37 PM ET

I think that this man is angry about something and he actually looking for some kind of a shelter or forgivness! But he will not find it, until he finds it in the Lord Jesus! And he knows that too!
Posted By Mike K, Salt Lake City, UT : 9:43 PM ET

If Jesus did not exist then why would we be talking about him? just a thought...
Posted By Don, Killeen Texas : 9:52 PM ET

Luigi Cascioli is simply doing what any rational person who feels a great injustice has been committed would do. I hope he suceeds and the world will begin to liberate itself from all religions, gods, and dogmas....which have brought nothing but misery to many innocent people. We need more science, reason, and love...
Posted By C. Botero, Austin, Texas : 9:52 PM ET

I personally don't believe Jesus was the literal son of god but with so many written accounts of Jesus's existance, how could it be possible that he did not exist. I also believe that we have been led astray with inexactitudes and some just plain lies, all to fit in to the creation of "THE PERFECT RELIEGION".
Posted By Raymond R. Kissimmee, Fl : 10:04 PM ET

How does this gentlemen think he got here???Hello....He will get his proof on his judgment day!!!!! Wouldn't we all love to be there!!!! He wants proof all he has to do is wait.
Posted By Barbara Paparodis, Canfield, OH : 10:09 PM ET

To answer the original question -You prove that Jesus exists the same way that you prove Alexander the Great, Socrates, or Henry VIII existed. Historical proof is different that scientific proof - but is no less reliable.
Posted By Nathan, San Diego, CA : 10:18 PM ET

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I react to this story in two ways. My first reaction is sadness that anyone should be so desperate and go to such lengths to justify his disbelief, especially the idea that he has "dedicated his life" to such a cause. My second reaction is welcoming. The church of Jesus Christ is about to get a platform in the media (OF COURSE the media will cover this!) in which the factual evidence for his life, teaching and resurrection will be presented to the world. There is more documentation of his life, including secular writings, than for any other historical figure of his time. Many, many people will come to a belief in Jesus Christ because of this lawsuit.
Posted By Reed Siebenthal, Muncie, IN, USA : 8:50 AM ET

And the day is coming soon when those who don't believe Jesus Christ existed are gonna wish they did and accepted Him as their personal Savior! I am ready to meet Jesus face to face! I pray for those who aren't. Jesus lives!
Posted By Patty Bane, Bluefield, WV : 8:51 AM ET

Oh look, an entry about organized religion and people are getting righteous, name-calling, arguing, and occasionally pleading for tolerance and reason. Perhaps if zealots of all kinds would tone down their rhetoric, religion would be something other than threatening, punitive and divisive. I don't know if God and Jesus exist or existed or not, but if they were to condemn to eternal damnation and hellfire all those who try to live exemplary lives because they had too many questions to embrace a single theology, why would I want to worship them? And oh yes, say goodbye to most of the Eastern hemisphere.Perhaps if the evangelical right was less sanctimonious, people of other faiths would not feel so embittered by them. Perhaps if they didn't tell gays they were sinners, people of all sexual orientations might perceive them as more educated, forgiving, and friendly. Perhaps if they didn't judge me - an agnostic - and then insist that THEY were not doing the judging; they were simply showing me "the truth," I would not so readily dismiss them. Perhaps if they would not claim to be my friend while believing that the entire maternal side of my family - the aunts and uncles and grandparents whom I loved who were Jewish - are burning in hell, I would find them less hypocritical. Perhaps if president Bush would shut up about his "faith-based" - by which he means Christian - initiatives, I would feel more at home in America.
Posted By Jeanne, Tampa, FL : 8:56 AM ET

It is amazing how little people know about is and is not written about Jesus, Christian and non-Christian alike. This man is try to prove Jesus did not exist not that Jesus is not God. Also no one is challenging his right to be an atheist he has taken up this burden on his own.The are several Historic references to Jesus out side the Bible. Those from Josephus & Tacitus are the most notable. The People that beleive the Bible was written by people that did not know Jesus are misinformed as 2 of the Gospels were written by disciples (Mathew and John) and the other 2 Mark by Mark as told to him by the Disciple Peter and Luke by the doctor and Historian Luke who through interviews with the disciples and other witnesse of Jesus actions complied a history the same way every other Historic bookhas been put together. All four were written within the life time of the disciplesbefore the end of the 1st century A.D.For those that blame Religion for wars and atrocities keep in mind that belief in Jesus and the Bible goes beyond religion and until religous people understand that they will act out in ignorance just as much as any atheist. There are entire books that support the existance of Jesus through Historic and other evidence this man is fighting a losing battle. Any attack on the Bibles Accuracy calls into questionevery historic document that we(humankind) do not posses the original.
Posted By Greg, Wichita, KS : 9:00 AM ET

I'm an atheist and I find this man's behavior appalling. How much more evidence do you need?
Posted By Dianna Williamsburg, VA : 9:08 AM ET

People get so worked up over the smallest things. This is more funny than offensive. Some of the people making comments should lighten up. This whole thing is a non-issue. Who really cares if he existed or not? People will believe whatever they want regardless of any facts or logic, that has been very well proven.....
Posted By J. Haddad, Charlotte NC : 9:23 AM ET

A religious belief, no matter what religion, or lack of,is nothing but a person's opinion of what existed or did not exist concerning God and Jesus. An opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. We should keep our opinion, and let others keep their's and not challenge them when they don't agree.If you believe the sky is yellow, fine, that's your opinion. Believe what you want. I believe the sky is blue. It's not my place to challenge you and say that you are wrong and force you to prove that it is not blue. This is just plain religious intolerence. If Casciloli doesn't believe in Jesus, that's his business. He should keeo it to himself and leave people alone with their opinion. This guy sounds like someone who gets annoyed when other people don't think like he does.
Posted By John, Middle Island, NY : 9:38 AM ET

An Important Video about the JFK Conspiracy

This is a very long, but an informative must see video.
It is well worth it and a must see video.
It is 1.5 hours long.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=-9137354720737304741&hl=en-CA

NEW WORLD ORDER for Dummies

An introductional movie to the NEW WORLD ORDER.

http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?
docId=2357448098911229950&hl=en-CA

Check this website also, it contains many things
including the controversy of 9/11.
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo.htm

An American Global Market.

http://www.youtube.com/v/JrIXNed6-tw

CHINA also shaping the NWO?

http://www.youtube.com/v/VCRaHc45HXc

Is this statement made on Sept 11,
1991 a mere coincidence?

http://www.youtube.com/v/7a9Syi12RJo

Microchips to track us?

http://www.youtube.com/v/SMEBpo_zyjw

The UN is the NWO?

http://www.youtube.com/v/eY_5j_zYlAs

WWIII?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/235519/
is_this_attack_on_iraq_designed_to_be_
the_trigger_for_world_war/

God and Science

To the Illuminati and to those of science, let me say this. You have won the war. The wheels have been in motion for a long time; your victory has been inevitable. Never has it been more obvious than at this moment. Science is the new God. Medicine, electric communications, space travel, genetic manipulation…these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede. But science’s victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but it has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science proclaims that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident. Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeated than they have in any point of human history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God’s world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning…and all it finds is more questions.

The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we do cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mind quests---all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.

Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for a man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species…moving down a path of destruction.

Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use this power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or bad idea.

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world beseeching leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church that opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church that points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? This church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how could there not be a God! You ask me what does God look like. I say, where did that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of heavenly bodies, and yet you fail to see God’s hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt that we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?

Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith…all faiths…are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable…With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed.

I have taken this speech from Angels & Demons by the author Dan Brown.

Brown, Dan. Angels & Demons Pocket Star Books. 2000. pp. 378-384.

GEORGE BUSH IS THE NEXT HITLER, as well as his failures as a president

"...and so he led the country to fascism. A fascist country is one that runs mostly using military power, with a strong sense of nationalism...much like a dictatorship...he used propaganda to discriminate against a certain scapegoat - usually a country or religious group. -History textbook "The Rise of Hitler"
Canada still has room for 49% of the American population. THEY WILL COME SOONER OR LATER!
1. Turned the largest US surplus into the largest deficit in American history, then gives tax cuts when he should be raising taxes to get more money for the country. (And of course, he only gives tax cuts to all of his rich buddies.)
2. Blamed bin Laden for 9/11 (which is okay), but when he couldn't find him, made Americans forget about him by diverting their attention to Saddam Hussein, who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Has he found bin Laden? Has he found any WMDs? Didn't think so.
3. Feels the need to stick his nose in Iraq's business and "improve" their government while bombing and completely destroying Iraq-it's obvious it's just an excuse to go to war.
4. Lies about there being NO terrorist attacks since 9/11, when there have been quite a few that he covers up or makes America forget about. (Like that anthrax threat a few years ago for example.)
5. Passes the Patriot Act to keep America safe from terrorists while arresting people who aren't terrorists, never catching the people who are, and violating SIX AMENDMENTS of the Constitution.
6. Passes "Clean Air Act" which actually makes the air dirtier.
7. Makes every country in the world besides Britain and Poland hate us.
8. Quits the Kyoto Protocol because it would make his rich buddies actually spend some money to reduce global warming, and God forbid anyone has to spend money.
9. Throws ultimatums at the American people that only a complete idiot could fall for (and a lot have) like "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" and basically just gets America to be loyal to him out of fear.
10. Only gets into Yale because of his father and passes with a C- average.
11. Has said enough stupid things to fill 265 pages of "Bushisms" books.
12. Gets elected into office after losing by over 10,000 votes. Do you think it's a coincidence that his brother was the governor of the state that the whole election depended on in 2000??
13. Someone who only got into Yale because his Dad has money and barely got through wth a C- average. A cheerleader and cocaine addict who was commonly arrested for drunk driving.GW in business is a:A financial flop who owns several corporations who should be bankrup except for the fact that his dad put more money into it. Overall.. cant run a company... so how the hell is he going to run a country?
dumb GW quotes
"They misunderestimated me"
"I believe that the human being and the fish shoud be able to live together in peace and harmony"
"We should be able to put food on our children"
"Mission Accomplished" (NOT!)
"I know it's a budget... because it has lots of numbers on it!