Very disappointed

[Andrew_RT]

Arguments stand on their own. There is no need for superfluous labels.

[Diadem]

Stop spewing idiocy, Jesus never existed-

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

get informed already...

Not only is that highly disputed, it is also irrelevant. Whether he has existed or not, it is a fact that the AD/BC and by extension the CE/BCE dating systems are based on his (supposed) birth year.

[Felch]

All the cool atheists know to measure years on the French Revolutionary calender.

Aujourd'hui c'est Décade III, Quintidi de Messidor de l'Année CCXVII de la Revolution.

[Felch]

Haha, not only does he dispute the divinity of Jesus (as reasonable atheists do) but he maintains that the guy never even existed (thus securing his spot among wacko atheists).

Not to mention the fact that there is really no rational way to prove that someone never existed. You can say that you haven't found conclusive evidence to confirm someone's existence, but you can't say with certainty that someone did not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

[Blaupanzer]

DP

[Blaupanzer]

Actually, R.A. Wilson noted that approximately 20 other calendars are in common usage on earth as we speak. Thousands of others came and went. Should we use one of those others instead? In game terms, for 4500 years no one knew or related to a calendar based on one non-ruler person's birth or death. For about 1400 years, western states used AD/BC for dating. Many westerners have used CE/BCE for about 60 years. In what way should an historical game mark time? 60 vs 1400 vs 4500 doesn't lean toward the smallest period figure.

I also have serious doubts regarding the current usefulness of any religious doctrine or church. However, reflecting that in a game covering the last 6000 yeas of history would be incredibly dense. Only fanatics attempt to deny the facts related to history in order to make history conform to their view of how people SHOULD think. Grow up!

[Theben]

The fact is that the universe and everything in it sprang into existence 2 minutes ago. All memory and history is a construct by an illogical universe to avoid this uncomfortable truth. It's well-documented.

[Robert]

Stop spewing idiocy, Jesus never existed-

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

get informed already...

If he never existed, then why do you base your calendar on his supposed birthday?

Not to mention of course that he does deserve a lot of respect for getting about 2,5 billion followers without even ever existing, that's quite a good job Even Steve Jobs, who brought us the ipod, doesn't have that much followers while his presence is still undisputed. (will certainly change at some point in the future though, some people are already doubting the existence Muhammed. It's a known thing, if you don't like something just say that it doesn't exist and never existed!)

[Felch]

Obviously, Mr. Plomp, you are wrong to believe that, and if you just watched the YouTube videos and read the page Andrew linked to, you would see the error of your ways.

Because as we all know, everything on the internet is true.

[Krill]

This thread should be moved to the OT...

[Robert]

Maybe it should... but it also has some civ elements. Factually the thread starter just wondered if civ should contain something as stupid as religions.

[Willem]

Stop spewing idiocy, Jesus never existed-

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm

get informed already...

Oh please. That's as much of a theory as the one that God actually exists. You're just substituting one blind faith for another.

[Robert]

Is every faith a blind faith or are there 'normal' faiths and blind faiths?

[Andrew_RT]

If he never existed, then why do you base your calendar on his supposed birthday?

Oh please. That's as much of a theory as the one that God actually exists. You're just substituting one blind faith for another.

Ah, it was too much for me to expect that you actually read the given article...
You probably didn't even watch the video in the opening post.

None of these nonsensical questions and remarks would happen otherwise.

Because as we all know, everything on the internet is true.

Yes, so that means that everything on internet is untrue, like internet is some kind of mystical magic, not a digital repository of all knowledge and there is no way to verify anything...really, do you have to belittle yourself so with that comment, you really brought the level of discussion down with it.
Also isn't the main feature of the internet hyperlinkability of all content? Do you really have to be so feeble minded as to allow internet tripe to cloud your reasoning?

P.S.
If you want to have an institutionalized superstition/god/sky fairy vs reason debate I'm all for it, you wouldn't be the first ones to get destroyed. I destroyed Muslims(completely demolished infinity concept), Catholics, Protestants....

[Felch]

I doubt you destroyed them. I suspect you merely posted links that make fallacious arguments. I looked at the links and they seemed to be more passionate than persuasive. I didn't bother watching the YouTube clip.

Atheism is not logical because it falls prey to the Negative Proof fallacy I linked to earlier. Agnosticism is rational. After all, you don't know whether there is a magical god fairy or not. There's no way you can know. You can only say that there is no evidence to support it. Does that make sense?