I see, despite your thanks to me for pointing out errors in your claims and reasoning and the statement that you'd try actually thinking rationally (on a different forum), that you haven't taken a bit of notice and are still repeating the same utter b*llocks you tried to get away with earlier. But, to your "credit", you've managed to add further (completely made up) utter b*llocks.
"Evidence" I like it. I knew from some holy books that prophets and god showed evidence to humen. And I still think evidence is really important. And I also think that I have nothing to do if a parson doesn't believe on god or prophets or spirits without evidence.
That's not true either. Those books CLAIM that evidence was given - but how do we know that those claims are valid? Quite possibly: but without evidence then why should others accept that belief and/ or follow a particular lifestyle/ set of rituals/ code of behaviour?
Thanks for your correction. It should be call by "CLAIM" to someone. Yes, It should be, And I think it too.
There is no evidence of anything spectacular happening 1900 years ago. There may have been a preacher named Jesus but there is no evidence that the stories about him are true.
And I found some stories about Jesus, about Mary, in Bible and Quran. But this stories of Quran were different than Bible.
