A case for religion, and against AA.

[Retro Rob]

What scholar am I believing? What are you talking about?

We're talking about the son of god, miracles, etc and you keep ignoring it. If aliens arrive I am not going to believe it based on 1200 year old texts and no first hand accounts either.

Keeping this in mind about you not believing a scholar, do you think miracles happened? If not, why?

 

[Exophase]

I am holding it to a higher standard because jesus is said to be the son of god, performed miracles, and so on. Is that not fair?

No, it isn't fair when those claims aren't being argued.

If all we are talking about is whether a carpenter existed then I suppose my answer to that is that I don't care. Also nobody else does either. Nobody was sitting around documenting that but they should have been documenting the greatest man to have ever existed.

If you don't care don't make statements that there's no evidence that Jesus existed, or that he probably didn't exist. People do care, because they care about history, and the nature of how Christianity originated is interesting to people. Do you think that history should only be interesting if it has religious significance?

We seem to be at an impasse since you believe in a text 1200 years after the fact and I don't find that to be good enough evidence.

Especially considering it was written by someone who was not there, not born during the events and would have been writing about Jesus about 2 generations after the fact. Or is it more? Life expectancy back then was probably around 50 years right? So for someone to write about Jesus over 110 years after Jesus was born, and 80 years after he died, they would be roughly the equivalent of lets see, 4 generations removed assuming people had kids around the age of 20-25.

The authenticity of Tacitus is the mainstream historical consensus. This has been challenged over and over again. There's plenty of supporting evidence that goes beyond what you're focusing on. Although not everyone agrees with it the opposition is still in the minority.

Much of what we know about Rome comes from Tacitus. I doubt you'd be arguing against the vast majority of it that doesn't involve Jesus.

 

[AViking]

No, it isn't fair when those claims aren't being argued.



If you don't care don't make statements that there's no evidence that Jesus existed, or that he probably didn't exist. People do care, because they care about history, and the nature of how Christianity originated is interesting to people. Do you think that history should only be interesting if it has religious significance?



The authenticity of Tacitus is the mainstream historical consensus. This has been challenged over and over again. There's plenty of supporting evidence that goes beyond what you're focusing on. Although not everyone agrees with it the opposition is still in the minority.

Much of what we know about Rome comes from Tacitus. I doubt you'd be arguing against the vast majority of it that doesn't involve Jesus.

I actually did not know that most of what we know about Rome comes from Tacitus. That seems a bit far fetched. Was that an over exaggeration?

If all you care is whether a carpenter lived then I suppose that's cool except that there is no first hand accounts of it. There first accounts are several generations away and even the bible is mostly people who had visions of him not on this earth. We can ignore the mystical and magical and focus on the man but that doesn't change the fact that there are no accounts of him until long after the fact.

I believe that things can be challenged. I am challenging the mainstream consensus as you call it since there is no evidence. The evidence that you are comfortable with is so far removed from the events and facts that might have existed to be very refutable.

 

[AViking]

Keeping this in mind about you not believing a scholar, do you think miracles happened? If not, why?

You don't address anything I say and keep asking stupid questions. Why in the world would I even answer you on this? Why would I have to justify why I think something didn't happen when there is no evidence to support that it did?

 

[soulcougher73]

I am holding it to a higher standard because jesus is said to be the son of god, performed miracles, and so on. Is that not fair?

If all we are talking about is whether a carpenter existed then I suppose my answer to that is that I don't care. Also nobody else does either. Nobody was sitting around documenting that but they should have been documenting the greatest man to have ever existed.

We seem to be at an impasse since you believe in a text 1200 years after the fact and I don't find that to be good enough evidence. Especially considering it was written by someone who was not there, not born during the events and would have been writing about Jesus about 2 generations after the fact. Or is it more? Life expectancy back then was probably around 50 years right? So for someone to write about Jesus over 110 years after Jesus was born, and 80 years after he died, they would be roughly the equivalent of lets see, 4 generations removed assuming people had kids around the age of 20-25.

I wrote a book about Jesus about 17 years ago. Its very crediable.

 

[Black Octagon]

On behalf of everyone else in the audience, this truly is a fantastic talk show.

 

[soulcougher73]

You don't address anything I say and keep asking stupid questions. Why in the world would I even answer you on this? Why would I have to justify why I think something didn't happen when there is no evidence to support that it did?

That is Rob's schtick. He deflects and never answers questions posed to him. Instead he will say he never made those claims. Total troll.

 

[Retro Rob]

I wrote a book about Jesus about 17 years ago. Its very crediable.

Seriously, where is it? Has it been published, reviewed, etc?

I'll take an Amazon link, if you have it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

lol

more atheist BS.....ni ce try....but that's the problem with being an atheist....you claim to be so smart because you think you have science on your side...
Yet you know nothing of the Bible...in fact ignorance is a good word...

That's the best you got?

This forum really is going downhill fast.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I am actually not sure what you mean by that statement.

The way it works is that you require evidence. I'm not here to prove a negative if that's what you're trying to bait me with.

He's been doing it non-stop in this thread. He believes the stories of jesus are true and you or I can't prove jesus didn't exist nor can you or I prove he wasn't the son of god. Yet he can't prove that I don't have pasta in place of internal organs, but knows that isn't true because it is a ridiculous claim. But walking on water, rising from the dead, turning water to wine, etc. he has no problem with believing even with a complete lack of evidence.



Separately, here is one more thing to chew on regarding the just and moral christian god (sarcasm) -

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ls-has-written-a-book-documenting-every-kill/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

http://teekaycheakin.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-many-people-did-bible-god-kill-vs.html

So let's see, the christian god kills by the millions (like Hitler, Stalin, etc.) The christian god ok's Israelites raping/keeping young women. The christian god is ok with his people keeping slaves from other countries. The christian god created you and knows you before birth, but he condemns you to not a few years, not a few hundred years, not even a few trillion years, but condemns you to eternal torment if you don't act and think how he'd like you to act and think. And let's not forget the racism, god clearly feels one race is superior to others.

Of course this is all form the same guy who condemned his own son to a torturous blood sacrifice in the middle of the desert (Isn't that one of the reasons he killed the canaanites?) so we probably shouldn't be too surprised.

mas·och·ism noun \ˈma-sə-ˌki-zəm, ˈma-zə- also ˈmā-\
: enjoyment of pain : pleasure that someone gets from being abused or hurt; especially : sexual enjoyment from being hurt or punished

sa·dism noun \ˈsā-ˌdi-zəm, ˈsa-\
: enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain; especially : sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone

 

[soulcougher73]

He's been doing it non-stop in this thread. He believes the stories of jesus are true and you or I can't prove jesus didn't exist nor can you or I prove he wasn't the son of god. Yet he can't prove that I don't have pasta in place of internal organs, but knows that isn't true because it is a ridiculous claim. But walking on water, rising from the dead, turning water to wine, etc. he has no problem with believing even with a complete lack of evidence.



Separately, here is one more thing to chew on regarding the just and moral christian god (sarcasm) -

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/25/how-many-people-did-god-slaughter-in-the-bible-steve-wells-has-written-a-book-documenting-every-kill/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

http://teekaycheakin.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-many-people-did-bible-god-kill-vs.html

So let's see, the christian god kills by the millions (like Hitler, Stalin, etc.) The christian god ok's Israelites raping/keeping young women. The christian god is ok with his people keeping slaves from other countries. The christian god created you and knows you before birth, but he condemns you to not a few years, not a few hundred years, not even a few trillion years, but condemns you to eternal torment if you don't act and think how he'd like you to act and think. And let's not forget the racism, god clearly feels one race is superior to others.

Of course this is all form the same guy who condemned his own son to a torturous blood sacrifice in the middle of the desert (Isn't that one of the reasons he killed the canaanites?) so we probably shouldn't be too surprised.

mas·och·ism noun \ˈma-sə-ˌki-zəm, ˈma-zə- also ˈmā-\
: enjoyment of pain : pleasure that someone gets from being abused or hurt; especially : sexual enjoyment from being hurt or punished

sa·dism noun \ˈsā-ˌdi-zəm, ˈsa-\
: enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain; especially : sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone

No, no, no. You are just interpreting it all wrong, will be the responces. Hell even all the christian branches cant agree on all the interpretations. Sort of sad an all knowing powerful god cant communicate without the need to try and interpret what he said.

Also you forgot the god who raped a married woman against her will to give us his son..:whiste:

 

[sandorski]

He's been doing it non-stop in this thread. He believes the stories of jesus are true and you or I can't prove jesus didn't exist nor can you or I prove he wasn't the son of god. Yet he can't prove that I don't have pasta in place of internal organs, but knows that isn't true because it is a ridiculous claim. But walking on water, rising from the dead, turning water to wine, etc. he has no problem with believing even with a complete lack of evidence.



Separately, here is one more thing to chew on regarding the just and moral christian god (sarcasm) -

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...ls-has-written-a-book-documenting-every-kill/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people

http://teekaycheakin.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-many-people-did-bible-god-kill-vs.html

So let's see, the christian god kills by the millions (like Hitler, Stalin, etc.) The christian god ok's Israelites raping/keeping young women. The christian god is ok with his people keeping slaves from other countries. The christian god created you and knows you before birth, but he condemns you to not a few years, not a few hundred years, not even a few trillion years, but condemns you to eternal torment if you don't act and think how he'd like you to act and think. And let's not forget the racism, god clearly feels one race is superior to others.

Of course this is all form the same guy who condemned his own son to a torturous blood sacrifice in the middle of the desert (Isn't that one of the reasons he killed the canaanites?) so we probably shouldn't be too surprised.

mas·och·ism noun \ˈma-sə-ˌki-zəm, ˈma-zə- also ˈmā-\
: enjoyment of pain : pleasure that someone gets from being abused or hurt; especially : sexual enjoyment from being hurt or punished

sa·dism noun \ˈsā-ˌdi-zəm, ˈsa-\
: enjoyment that someone gets from being violent or cruel or from causing pain; especially : sexual enjoyment from hurting or punishing someone

hmm, you almost make it sound kinda icky....:biggrin:

 

[Exophase]

I actually did not know that most of what we know about Rome comes from Tacitus. That seems a bit far fetched. Was that an over exaggeration?

I said "much", not "most." I'm not sure if you think I meant most when I said that or if you just misread it, but I didn't mean most.

If all you care is whether a carpenter lived then I suppose that's cool except that there is no first hand accounts of it. There first accounts are several generations away and even the bible is mostly people who had visions of him not on this earth. We can ignore the mystical and magical and focus on the man but that doesn't change the fact that there are no accounts of him until long after the fact.

I don't even think there's any compelling evidence that he was carpenter

I believe that things can be challenged. I am challenging the mainstream consensus as you call it since there is no evidence. The evidence that you are comfortable with is so far removed from the events and facts that might have existed to be very refutable.

A LOT of history is made up of evidence like this. This is not a court of law, you don't need to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to be historically relevant.

A second source has some degree of credibility if, like in this case, he is known to be a historian and has access to official documents. In the same section he's speaking of specific historical events (the fire in Rome during the reign of Nero), I doubt he's done zero research on this matter. He may not have been sitting down and reading his sources when he wrote it but he's most likely thoroughly studied on the matter and would have remembered reading these sources, instead of just citing rumors.

Much later copies have some degree of credibility if, like in this case, there are multiple copies from multiple sources that agree, and there's a lack of clear motivation for forgery. In this case there'd be a motivation against middle age scribes to insert something in a copy that disparages Christianity; these people weren't exactly falling back on scraps to show that Jesus even existed like some may today.

There are many other tests for authenticity. The style of writing can be compared with other sources from that time. Other claims made by that author can be cross referenced with that source. It can be checked for anachronisms. It can be checked for things that would have been difficult for the author to know. There's a lot more that historians can do than simply say "well the author wasn't an eye-witness or contemporaneous" or "well the only surviving copies are a lot newer than the original", so they wouldn't just immediately write it off like you are.

Sure, sometimes consensus among historians changes and it should be challenged. But I think it's pretty arrogant of you, whom I assume to not be a historian, to challenge something you were only just acquainted with because it doesn't pass your smell test. Without the proper research and credentials I would tend to defer to consensus opinion on this over your own.

 

[SlowSpyder]

hmm, you almost make it sound kinda icky....:biggrin:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm

The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson Jg.14:19, BT 30 284,005+
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson Jg.15:14-15, BT 1000 285,005+

:biggrin:

 

[dphantom]

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/godkills.htm



:biggrin:

truly juvenile. This forum is supposed to be better. Congratulations on lowering it to teen boy status.

 

[sandorski]

truly juvenile. This forum is supposed to be better. Congratulations on lowering it to teen boy status.

Really?

 

[JEDIYoda]

You don't address anything I say and keep asking stupid questions. Why in the world would I even answer you on this? Why would I have to justify why I think something didn't happen when there is no evidence to support that it did?

spoken like a true atheist...make the rules but don`t follow them yourself...lolol

 

[AViking]

spoken like a true atheist...make the rules but don`t follow them yourself...lolol

I'm not an atheist.

All your posts seem to be calling people atheists and telling them they don't understand.

 

[AViking]

A LOT of history is made up of evidence like this. This is not a court of law, you don't need to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt for it to be historically relevant.

A second source has some degree of credibility if, like in this case, he is known to be a historian and has access to official documents. In the same section he's speaking of specific historical events (the fire in Rome during the reign of Nero), I doubt he's done zero research on this matter. He may not have been sitting down and reading his sources when he wrote it but he's most likely thoroughly studied on the matter and would have remembered reading these sources, instead of just citing rumors.

Much later copies have some degree of credibility if, like in this case, there are multiple copies from multiple sources that agree, and there's a lack of clear motivation for forgery. In this case there'd be a motivation against middle age scribes to insert something in a copy that disparages Christianity; these people weren't exactly falling back on scraps to show that Jesus even existed like some may today.

There are many other tests for authenticity. The style of writing can be compared with other sources from that time. Other claims made by that author can be cross referenced with that source. It can be checked for anachronisms. It can be checked for things that would have been difficult for the author to know. There's a lot more that historians can do than simply say "well the author wasn't an eye-witness or contemporaneous" or "well the only surviving copies are a lot newer than the original", so they wouldn't just immediately write it off like you are.

Sure, sometimes consensus among historians changes and it should be challenged. But I think it's pretty arrogant of you, whom I assume to not be a historian, to challenge something you were only just acquainted with because it doesn't pass your smell test. Without the proper research and credentials I would tend to defer to consensus opinion on this over your own.

I'm fairly sure I wrote somewhere above that it's possible that Jesus exists just not probable. 99.99% of the evidence supporting his existence is based on the bible. You then have an additional couple sources and people use that to account for the second source argument and call it a day. However it's so long after the fact and to me is like the world ending tomorrow and future civilizations only finding the Harry Potter books plus fan fiction and concluding that the former human civilization was made up of Witches and Wizards. They'll write off our demise as Voldemort coming back and wiping us out or something. Someone will find a broken glass ball in the rubble somewhere on earth and conclude that these were in fact the prophesies. A "magic wand" collector item would be found and nobody would ever question the existence of Harry Potter again.

It's kinda absurd. At the same time I can understand how it would happen.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Jesus was not only a man but the son of god. He would have been the most important human being to have ever existed. He would have performed miracles in front of thousands of people. He could defy physics. He could violate the laws of nature. Other magical creatures would have accompanied him.

To truly believe that such an event would not have had every historian alive at the time writing about it is odd. I suppose we can say that all those documents were destroyed. Even if that's the case you have to figure that despite every current document being destroyed there would have been hundreds of other documents that would have surfaced after the fact. Every historian from that point on would probably be writing about it. No. We only have a couple non-biblical sources and they are long after the fact. Worse yet in the case of Tacitus the document we see is a copy of the original and is written about 1100 years later.

If Jesus truly existed he would have fulfilled a prophesy that the Jews had been waiting for hundreds of years for. They weren't impressed apparently. How could they not be impressed by the son of god and all his miracles?

Because they never happened. Because the man probably never existed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'm fairly sure I wrote somewhere above that it's possible that Jesus exists just not probable. 99.99% of the evidence supporting his existence is based on the bible. You then have an additional couple sources and people use that to account for the second source argument and call it a day. However it's so long after the fact and to me is like the world ending tomorrow and future civilizations only finding the Harry Potter books plus fan fiction and concluding that the former human civilization was made up of Witches and Wizards. They'll write off our demise as Voldemort coming back and wiping us out or something. Someone will find a broken glass ball in the rubble somewhere on earth and conclude that these were in fact the prophesies. A "magic wand" collector item would be found and nobody would ever question the existence of Harry Potter again.

It's kinda absurd. At the same time I can understand how it would happen.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- another atheist talking point...rofl

Jesus was not only a man but the son of god. He would have been the most important human being to have ever existed. He would have performed miracles in front of thousands of people. He could defy physics. He could violate the laws of nature. Other magical creatures would have accompanied him.

To truly believe that such an event would not have had every historian alive at the time writing about it is odd. -- HELLO...earth to Aviking -- no cable..no telephone...no jets...no cars....no radio.....no television...I am sorry but this was in a small part of the known world and how would word travel so quickly and even more to the point - How would most historians even get to that part of the world? How would they finds the son of god..as much as he moved from place to place....your argument holds no water..its a bucket with more holes in it than carter has pills!!
I suppose we can say that all those documents were destroyed. Even if that's the case you have to figure that despite every current document being destroyed there would have been hundreds of other documents that would have surfaced after the fact. Every historian from that point on would probably be writing about it. No. We only have a couple non-biblical sources and they are long after the fact. Worse yet in the case of Tacitus the document we see is a copy of the original and is written about 1100 years later.

If Jesus truly existed he would have fulfilled a prophesy that the Jews had been waiting for hundreds of years for. -- you know nothing of the scriptures...its quite obvious and laughable and sad and pathetic all at the same time!
They weren't impressed apparently. How could they not be impressed by the son of god and all his miracles?

Because they never happened. Because the man probably never existed.

Jesus Loves You!!

 

[OverVolt]

That's the best you got?

This forum really is going downhill fast.

I already made up my mind. Athiests = ignorant. Its very straightforward. They formed their opinion out of ignorance and it just gets crazy after that. Its pointless arguing with them. They'll either seek to educate themselves on their own or not, its their choice. Not all the atheists are ignorant I know that. There are some here who don't reek of ignorance. But the majority do. So that's how I see them until I get to know any particular one.

 

[SlowSpyder]

truly juvenile. This forum is supposed to be better. Congratulations on lowering it to teen boy status.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was just joking because of what sandorski wrote. It wasn't even meant as anti-christianity.

 

[OverVolt]

meh

 

[SlowSpyder]

I already made up my mind. Athiests = ignorant. Its very straightforward. They formed their opinion out of ignorance and it just gets crazy after that. Its pointless arguing with them. They'll either seek to educate themselves on their own or not, its their choice. Not all the atheists are ignorant I know that. There are some here who don't reek of ignorance. But the majority do. So that's how I see them until I get to know any particular one.

I bet I know more about christianity the average christian these days.

 

[dphantom]

I bet I know more about christianity the average christian these days.

You have clearly demonstrated the opposite. I am afraid you understand very little about religion, let alone Christianity. But hopefully you will take some of the things we have tried to show and grow from them.