A case for religion, and against AA.

[AViking]

My ilk? I'm not atheist. I'm not Christian and believe that it is improbable that Jesus did anything that Christians say he did and quite possible that he never even existed but that doesn't make me an atheist.

There is simply no direct or indirect evidence of anything Jesus did. It isn't until years later that the bible was put together, which makes sense, but we can see today that some parts of the bible are copied from other parts and others are forgeries such as all but 7 of the pauline epistles. Then on top of that large parts are written by people who never met Jesus. Having visions, which is common in many religions, is not very confidence inspiring and provides no evidence other than he said she said.

I believe that people would be far better off asking the big questions and being critical thinkers without falling prey to the absurdity that is the Christian religion. That's not atheist though.

 

[sao123]

All the trolling made me lose this. Lets keep it honest though and continue.

1. What does Pontius Pilate have to do with Jesus being real? Writing a story about a fake person in a real location with real people does not make him any more real than Zeus.

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

2. Same thing goes for Caiaphus really plus...

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

One of the principal arguments against the Man known as Jesus of Nazareth was doubt surrounding the existence of Pontius Pilate. The existence of the man Pilate (documented by 2 separate historians to have ORDERED THE EXECUTION of Jesus of Nazareth), if proven would be a CORROBORATION if not direct evidence that the man Jesus also existed.

Caiaphas was the main plaintiff (Charger?) in the Trial of Jesus Christ. Again, his existence proven would provide the same effect.

3. The James Ossuary had me very interested a decade or so ago. I followed it in the news but it's really not that exciting anymore.

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

So a funeral box which bears the name of the man you doubt to have ever existed, wouldn't that be considered Direct Evidence?

4. I wasn't even aware that Nazerath was controversial. Still, we're on point 4 and nothing provides any evidence, even indirectly for Jesus being a real person. Lets see if point 5 is any better.

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

Archaeologists who previously doubted the existence of Jesus of Nazareth pointed to the fact that they believe Nazareth didn't exist until several years after Jesus, and thus his stories couldn't be true. The revelation that Nazareth existed during the necessary time period eliminated this difficulty.

5. First century historians. This is the one that interests me the most since I think it really is where the any truth will be found. Maybe we'll get lucky and find the body of Jesus or some scrolls from the time of his life one day but until then the historical record is really what we have.

None of the historians there during his life wrote about him. The soonest anyone wrote about him was many years after his death and by people who were not there even born at the time. It's not that crazy really for things to not be documented on the spot like they are today. Oral tradition was still strong and things would be written down after the fact. In some cases long after the fact.

Now you are raising the bar above what modern archaeology can provide about any man living at that time. 1st of all you are speaking about writings which are known to have survived. They may have existed, but not been found, or have been destroyed.

Second, You have more evidence for Jesus of Nazareth than you have for Alexander the Great. The first writings about Jesus from Historians come about 70 years after his death. The first writings about Alexander the Great come from 400 years after his death, yet no-one doubts his existence. 1st hand accounts do not set the bar in modern archaeology because they often do not exist.

The issue with Jesus is that he was the son of god. He was born to a virgin mother with angels present, performed amazing miracles, and rose from the dead.

This man who you insist is real based on the evidence above would have been the greatest man to have ever lived yet no historians at the time wrote about him. Worse yet we can see that parts of the bible are unauthentic and worse yet huge parts of the bible are written by people who never saw Jesus and admit it.

I'm simply showing you that modern archaeology gives credence to the Existence of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth as a real person. None of the evidence I have provided speaks to his divinity, miracles, or godship. Simply that he was a real person, who lived, and was executed by the Roman government.

You listed a few names that I have never seen attributed to the historical record of Jesus. Emperor Trajan for example who was born 20 years after Jesus died and Lucian who wrote a satire about Christians but was born almost 100 years after Jesus died. Neither of these people or any of the others you mentioned were present. So the real question I have is what about the people who were there?

Ever heard of Philo? The man lived in Alexandria and visited Jerusalem at the time of Jesus and was a historian. He talks about all kinds of stuff but nothing about Jesus. If I'm not mistaken we have about 1,000,000 words from Philo yet not a single mention of Jesus. Does this not bother you?

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

Philo was a philosopher not a historian. Philo did not write about the day to day politics of the region. He wrote about philosophy. Interestingly enough we do have that Philo eventually wrote about the Christian Church started at Alexander by Mark the Evangelist (who is also attributed to writing the book of Mark) and Meeting Saint Peter while on a mission to Emperor Caius, both of whom are attributed to being of the original 12 followers of Christ.

This is an argument from silence and I do apologize. However neither you nor I have much to work with since there is no archaeological evidence and no written evidence to work with. The closest thing we have is the next generation.

This is simply a facet of archaeology which is impossible to solve. You use what you have. Again, see the Alexander the Great example.

 

[OverVolt]

Moving goalposts is actually a logical fallacy that the atheists oh-so love.

I've literally never seen an atheist concede a single point even if the point they were making was utterly ignorant "There is no evidence of Jesus" and such.

Like I've been saying I'm not surprised at all.

I'm not sure these guys can even watch a movie without telling the audience that Neo isn't the one, its just Keanu Reaves in tight black leather and they're all stupid for playing along with such clearly false shenanigans as if they were the smartest (or dumbest, IMO) man in the room. Because the audience is past that and miles ahead. They know Neo isn't the one, they know its Keanu Reaves, but they follow the story anyway.

They're completely missing out on what religion represents by obsessing about who wrote what and if they saw it with their own eyes, etc.

Genesis to me is creation stories and thats how it was taught to me in 12 years of catholic school. Parts of the lineage in the old testament was how credibility was established in the past, some of the hyperbole about peoples ages "400 years old" and such is just that, hyperbole, IMO. Around Jesus' time something remarkable DID happen. The messages in the parables IS applicable to modern life (the human condition in particular) and I still do believe in God, so yup. Though I highly respect the fact that not all sects believe that and thats okay with me. Where as it seems to just reallly grind the gears of the atheists, they can't stand creationists and such.

Atheists are totally missing the point. Not the smartest man in the room, I assure you. I'm not saying its me because its not. Atheists aren't as clever as they think they are though. Like no one has ever questioned their faith before, like the atheists are on to some big epiphany, yea, right.

If you guys were so smart and you took Pascals wager which would you choose? You must really be 99.9% confident in something to which there is zero evidence on either side. That makes you smart? How? I think its dumb. You don't know and neither do I. I think that's a big difference between those who believe and those who don't. Having faith recognizes the fact that in your mortal life you will never know but choose to believe anyway. Where as Atheists have just as little information but choose to pretend that they know that answer, that god doesn't exist. Pretending you know something that you actually don't know is dangerous, IMO. So whenever I see an atheist talk, I know that they are just pretending to know, in their own little pretend beliefs that they share with each other. Er... sorry, lack of belief, whatever. Call it what you want.

 

[sandorski]

Moving goalposts is actually a logical fallacy that the atheists oh-so love.

I've literally never seen an atheist concede a single point even if the point they were making was utterly ignorant "There is no evidence of Jesus" and such.

Like I've been saying I'm not surprised at all.

I'm not sure these guys can even watch a movie without telling the audience that Neo isn't the one, its just Keanu Reaves in tight black leather and they're all stupid for playing along with such clearly false shenanigans as if they were the smartest (or dumbest, IMO) man in the room. Because the audience is past that and miles ahead. They know Neo isn't the one, they know its Keanu Reaves, but they follow the story anyway.

They're completely missing out on what religion represents by obsessing about who wrote what and if they saw it with their own eyes, etc.

Genesis to me is creation stories and thats how it was taught to me in 12 years of catholic school. Parts of the lineage in the old testament was how credibility was established in the past, some of the hyperbole about peoples ages "400 years old" and such is just that, hyperbole, IMO. Around Jesus' time something remarkable DID happen. The messages in the parables IS applicable to modern life (the human condition in particular) and I still do believe in God, so yup. Though I highly respect the fact that not all sects believe that and thats okay with me. Where as it seems to just reallly grind the gears of the atheists, they can't stand it.

Atheists are totally missing the point. Not the smartest man in the room, I assure you. I'm not saying its me because its not. Atheists aren't as clever as they think they are though. Like no one has ever questioned their faith before, like the atheists are on to some big epiphany, yea, right.

If you guys were so smart and you took Pascals wager which would you choose? You must really be 99.9% confident in something to which there is zero evidence on either side. That makes you smart? How? I think its dumb. You don't know and neither do I. I think that's a big difference between those who believe and those who don't. Having faith recognizes the fact that in your mortal life you will never know but choose to believe anyway. Where as Atheists have just as little information but choose to pretend that they know that answer, that god doesn't exist. Pretending you know something that you actually don't know is dangerous, IMO. So whenever I see an atheist talk, I know that they are just pretending to know, in their own little pretend beliefs that they share with each other. Er... sorry, lack of belief, whatever. Call it what you want.

Pascals Wager is silly. It dismisses the tens of thousands of other gods ever claimed to exist. On that point alone the best choice is to not believe, then hope that any god that may exist will understand why.

That's just 1 reason why it's silly.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Moving goalposts is actually a logical fallacy that the atheists oh-so love.

I've literally never seen an atheist concede a single point even if the point they were making was utterly ignorant "There is no evidence of Jesus" and such.

Like I've been saying I'm not surprised at all.

I'm not sure these guys can even watch a movie without telling the audience that Neo isn't the one, its just Keanu Reaves in tight black leather and they're all stupid for playing along with such clearly false shenanigans as if they were the smartest (or dumbest, IMO) man in the room. Because the audience is past that and miles ahead. They know Neo isn't the one, they know its Keanu Reaves, but they follow the story anyway.

They're completely missing out on what religion represents by obsessing about who wrote what and if they saw it with their own eyes, etc.

Genesis to me is creation stories and thats how it was taught to me in 12 years of catholic school. Parts of the lineage in the old testament was how credibility was established in the past, some of the hyperbole about peoples ages "400 years old" and such is just that, hyperbole, IMO. Around Jesus' time something remarkable DID happen. The messages in the parables IS applicable to modern life (the human condition in particular) and I still do believe in God, so yup. Though I highly respect the fact that not all sects believe that and thats okay with me. Where as it seems to just reallly grind the gears of the atheists, they can't stand creationists and such.

Atheists are totally missing the point. Not the smartest man in the room, I assure you. I'm not saying its me because its not. Atheists aren't as clever as they think they are though. Like no one has ever questioned their faith before, like the atheists are on to some big epiphany, yea, right.

If you guys were so smart and you took Pascals wager which would you choose? You must really be 99.9% confident in something to which there is zero evidence on either side. That makes you smart? How? I think its dumb. You don't know and neither do I. I think that's a big difference between those who believe and those who don't. Having faith recognizes the fact that in your mortal life you will never know but choose to believe anyway. Where as Atheists have just as little information but choose to pretend that they know that answer, that god doesn't exist. Pretending you know something that you actually don't know is dangerous, IMO. So whenever I see an atheist talk, I know that they are just pretending to know, in their own little pretend beliefs that they share with each other. Er... sorry, lack of belief, whatever. Call it what you want.

It's pretty hilarious to see someone go on a tirade about how smart atheists aren't, and then cap it off with an endorsement of Pascal's Wager.

 

[OverVolt]

It's pretty hilarious to see someone go on a tirade about how smart atheists aren't, and then cap it off with an endorsement of Pascal's Wager.

Well I figure you guys love that type of stuff.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Pascals Wager is silly. It dismisses the tens of thousands of other gods ever claimed to exist. On that point alone the best choice is to not believe, then hope that any god that may exist will understand why.

That's just 1 reason why it's silly.

More atheist denial and talking points....which will never cease...

 

[dphantom]

Pascals Wager was groundbreaking work in mathematics/game theory. It stirred up both the religious and the atheists. I would suggest to our angry atheists here to not be so quick to dismiss as "silly" such work. Perhaps a discussion of why you think it is silly would be in order.

I continue to find it amusing our angry atheists dismiss completely any proposal for God's existence. Even to the point of rejecting sound archeological and historical evidence simply to avoid ever having to acknowledge a particular person lived.

To me, it borders on a theism of its own, an unshakeable faith that there can be no God, ever. But of course our angry atheists will reject they have any faith or religion, that they are only acting rationally, with reason, waiting to see the proof/evidence of divination while closing their minds to accepting the possibility there ever could be any such evidence.

If I am wrong in my Faith, I have harmed no one. If I am right, I have gained so much.

 

[sandorski]

Pascals Wager was groundbreaking work in mathematics/game theory. It stirred up both the religious and the atheists. I would suggest to our angry atheists here to not be so quick to dismiss as "silly" such work. Perhaps a discussion of why you think it is silly would be in order.

I continue to find it amusing our angry atheists dismiss completely any proposal for God's existence. Even to the point of rejecting sound archeological and historical evidence simply to avoid ever having to acknowledge a particular person lived.

To me, it borders on a theism of its own, an unshakeable faith that there can be no God, ever. But of course our angry atheists will reject they have any faith or religion, that they are only acting rationally, with reason, waiting to see the proof/evidence of divination while closing their minds to accepting the possibility there ever could be any such evidence.

If I am wrong in my Faith, I have harmed no one. If I am right, I have gained so much.

As I already pointed out it is not a 50/50 choice. It's more like a 1/xx,xxx choice.

On top of that, can one truly "Believe" based upon the Chance of being correct and be genuine about it at the same time? Seems like something a god would see right through.

 

[richaron]

More atheist denial and talking points....which will never cease...

Pascals Wager was groundbreaking work in mathematics/game theory. It stirred up both the religious and the atheists. I would suggest to our angry atheists here to not be so quick to dismiss as "silly" such work. Perhaps a discussion of why you think it is silly would be in order.

You must see how Pascall's Wager is deeply flawed. It's obvious that one of the options in the "wager" is thoroughly dependent on faith (or uncertainty towards said faith). This pseudo logic is nothing more than a self gratifying confabulation mechanism.

I, and many others, base absolutely nothing on one half of the wager. I'm certainly not going to stop valuing material possessions, waste half my Sundays with loosers, or partaking in a discreet bit of buggery or premarital sex if that's my wish. And my lack of belief in a space wizard wont stop me help elderly with their shopping trolleys or donate to a charity (both of which I did yesterday).

 

[dphantom]

As I already pointed out it is not a 50/50 choice. It's more like a 1/xx,xxx choice.

On top of that, can one truly "Believe" based upon the Chance of being correct and be genuine about it at the same time? Seems like something a god would see right through.

all already addressed if you read the entirety of the proposition.

 

[sandorski]

all already addressed if you read the entirety of the proposition.

I don't see such a thing. Other than you just being perplexed why we don't just accept the baseless assertions we keep getting in response.

That's not how one makes reasonable choices or decisions.

 

[dphantom]

I don't see such a thing. Other than you just being perplexed why we don't just accept the baseless assertions we keep getting in response.

That's not how one makes reasonable choices or decisions.

Pascals Wager is not a baseless assertion.

Anything offered is baseless in your mind if it does not conform to your only acceptable alternative, a world without Faith in anything.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Pascals Wager was groundbreaking work in mathematics/game theory.

That doesn't make it a reasonable argument.

It stirred up both the religious and the atheists. I would suggest to our angry atheists here to not be so quick to dismiss as "silly" such work. Perhaps a discussion of why you think it is silly would be in order.

Why would anyone with 3 brain cells to rub together think it was useful? It arbitrarily assumes that the only two choices are Christianity or nothing. It plays upon the ignorance of people with minds too small to think outside of that ridiculous little dichotomy.

The only purpose it serves is to reveal theists that haven't actually carefully examined their own beliefs.

If I am wrong in my Faith, I have harmed no one. If I am right, I have gained so much.

I give you exhibit A.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Pascals Wager is not a baseless assertion.

Yes, it is.

If you intend to convince anyone that it isn't, then you'll need to supply the basis upon which the wager excludes the possibility that the atheist and the Christian are both wrong.

Anything offered is baseless in your mind if it does not conform to your only acceptable alternative, a world without Faith in anything.

The irony is delicious.

 

[AViking]

How can one move goal posts when the issue at hand is whether a man born to a virgin mother with angels present walked this earth, could perform miracles, and came back from the grave? Where your only "evidence" is the bible and that some people who were written about in the bible actually did exist.

I like how you conveniently ignored and didn't quote the parts where the evidence you put forth is not reliable.

At the end of the day you have faith in what today would be called a space zombie and a bunch of you feel that it's all about Pascal's Wager? Good for you.

I have better things to do with my life.

Without evidence I have no reason to believe in any of this. When I die God will understand. If God requires us to worship him then he can give us some proof. Besides, I don't believe in this angry god you guys do where you don't get to go to this magical place called heaven or you go to hell if you don't worship him. To actually believe that you need to pay homage to god or else bad things will happen to you. That makes no sense. I'd go so far as to say that you'd have to be a moron to believe that.



Requirement for DC is to be civil.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2303471

"I'd go so far as to say that you'd have to be a moron to believe that. "

Name calling is not civil.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[JEDIYoda]

How can one move goal posts when the issue at hand is whether a man born to a virgin mother with angels present walked this earth, could perform miracles, and came back from the grave? Where your only "evidence" is the bible and that some people who were written about in the bible actually did exist.

I like how you conveniently ignored and didn't quote the parts where the evidence you put forth is not reliable.

At the end of the day you have faith in what today would be called a space zombie and a bunch of you feel that it's all about Pascal's Wager? Good for you.

I have better things to do with my life.

Without evidence I have no reason to believe in any of this. When I die God will understand. If God requires us to worship him then he can give us some proof. Besides, I don't believe in this angry god you guys do where you don't get to go to this magical place called heaven or you go to hell if you don't worship him. To actually believe that you need to pay homage to god or else bad things will happen to you. That makes no sense. I'd go so far as to say that you'd have to be a moron to believe that.

Some of us were told to be civil......and stop calling names either directly or indirectly.....
I would say everything will be made plain someday.....
I would also say the word "faith" comes into this as does a Christians belief in what the Bible says.

 

[AViking]

This might be more appropriate.

http://www.scifixtreme.com/media_ce...irefly/firefly-jaynestown-bible-s-broken.html

Yes faith is the keyword but at some point you have to at least use a shred of common sense and logic.

 

[norseamd]

The root cause was the East-West Schism.

the crusades had nothing to do with the east west scism. likely had influence but not the full cause. actually the byzantine empire requested assistance form the catholic nations against the turks. and turks mistreating christian pilgrims might also have inspired the crusades.

 

[norseamd]

47 pages of the same shit. yikes. can not read if i even wanted to. some more on waht you guys were talking about earlier. know you guys like bickering with each other but if any one wants to talk about this that would be nice.

here are the links i posted earlier. could not find them in the thread even after like a full 5 to 10 minutes of searching. had to look at my previous posts.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36049359&postcount=803

so judism is thought by some to have formed from a synthesis from refugee atenism, canaanite religion, nile delta refugees, and desert nomads. atenism has its roots in a struggle between amun worshiping priests and the pharoah. amenhotep IV shortly after ascending the throne changed his name to akhenaten and made aten the chief diety and started construction of his capital akhetaten. after tutankhaten succeeded akhenaten he was quickly forced to shift the power to the priests of amun and change his name to tutankhamun. tutankhamun died early in his life and then more pharoahs succeeded him eventually leading to horemheb.

 

[norseamd]

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

here is another theory

 

[JEDIYoda]

47 pages of the same shit. yikes. can not read if i even wanted to. some more on waht you guys were talking about earlier. know you guys like bickering with each other but if any one wants to talk about this that would be nice.

here are the links i posted earlier. could not find them in the thread even after like a full 5 to 10 minutes of searching. had to look at my previous posts.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost...&postcount=803

so judism is thought by some to have formed from a synthesis from refugee atenism, canaanite religion, nile delta refugees, and desert nomads. atenism has its roots in a struggle between amun worshiping priests and the pharoah. amenhotep IV shortly after ascending the throne changed his name to akhenaten and made aten the chief diety and started construction of his capital akhetaten. after tutankhaten succeeded akhenaten he was quickly forced to shift the power to the priests of amun and change his name to tutankhamun. tutankhamun died early in his life and then more pharoahs succeeded him eventually leading to horemheb.

You could always start a thread of your own....so people here can stay on topic.....

 

[jhbball]

More atheist denial and talking points....which will never cease...

You have the reasoning skills of a toddler.

No personal attacks in Discussion Club - Admin DrPizza

 

[norseamd]

You could always start a thread of your own....so people here can stay on topic.....

after going through some of this thread seems this thread has been all over the place and some of you guys have said the same thing. the previous topic had been on jesus and earlier historical spiritual beings that had a story that was like jesus. like 10 of the major ones.

will try to avoid pushing people to answer though. so start bickering away with more god exists and you are wrong and no you are wrong god does not exist if you want. just the same arguements said

 

[Agent11]

Is anyone up to speed on the evolution of this thread? I think the sum of the issue would be to identify the perceived deficiency of an 'Angry Atheist' and then attempt to come to a consensus on what those deficiencies are resultant from in our comparative worldviews.

For my part, I think that an 'Angry Atheist' suffers from depression resulting from existential stress. Many philosophers have suffered similarly, and not all of us can take the stress of the mental development of becoming Übermensch. Some try to take things too far, they ponder consciousness, reality, and they can lose their grip on it. They separate themselves from the group, and they find themselves unable to politely discourse with it. The transformation is fraught with pitfalls.