• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Saw this question on r/atheism today.

Page 38 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
M: You can't prove to me that how you react to Rob's irrational faith isn't a bias against irrationality you picked up as a result of being brainwashed yourself and the emotional residue of having had that experience, say maybe a self contempt that you could have ever been so gullible.

CK: That's true, I can't prove it. But that's only true if we take it to a nihilistic level where we can't prove anything that is related to the mind or to positions.

M: But how is that different than what you are asking him to do, to prove that something he knows is real that is related to the mind or to positions. Why do you get to plea nihilism and not he? For each of you, the foundation of your thinking is fundamental, reason admits no bias, god exists.

CK: But again here, Rob made the positive assertion, that my views on religion are a specific result of experiences in my childhood. He's provided no evidence to support this whatsoever.

M: And he can't anymore than you can disprove that God exists. It could be that my doubt in God just got shifted over to my Atheism, but I seem to have a need to pass the nihilism test. All that happens to me when I think on these things is the ending of thought in peace. I stop swimming for the island because it was the ocean that was my real goal.

CK: Worse, even his premises are false. I don't "hate God" or whatever; that's just a defense mechanism so he doesn't have to address the issues.

M: He is describing what he a defense mechanism he thinks you have just as you are describing now one that he thinks you have. As a nihilist, I can't prove the difference, but I have no need of certainty.
==============
M: Both you and he believe you are right, he about his god and you about your lack of bias, the purity of your reason.

CK: The difference is that I have laid out entirely rational bases for my views, and he has not. As I said before, even if his false claims were true, they have no impact on the validity or invalidity of my reasoning. Even if I go to bed every night screaming "I HATE GOD!" a hundred times, that doesn't change the fact that there is no real evidence for the existence of deities, nor the fact that the New Testament was written by a bunch of people who never knew Jesus, and whose stories are mutually contradictory.

M: I charged you with belief in the purity of reason and you affirm the purity of your reason, hehe. I have no problem with your reasoning, you reason soundly, in my opinion. I have a problem with the value of reason when it comes to knowing God. In my opinion, my own reasoning led me to the conclusion that reasoning was empty of love and could know nothing, that it was a prison I built for myself. I reached the end of reason and found a strawberry growing on a cliff. I hope you know that story. It was a nice story like the one about Jesus that just happened to save my life. I believe the fictional Christ has done the same for others. I killed my reason with reason, but others do it with faith. Sadly, some forget that reason is great in some spheres.
=========
M: "People say they will believe it when they see it, but I say people see only what they believe." So I believe Rob sees God because he believes and you don't because you don't believe and that's it, end of story.

CK: That's nonsense. I could use the same "reasoning" to "prove" that anything nonexistent actually does exist.

M: And you are, just as Rob is. He believes in God so he sees Him. You don't believe in a God that doesn't exist and you see he doesn't exist. So all this seeing of a God that doesn't exist and not seeing that same God is the result of an inability to see who God really is, a state of consciousness into which one can awaken and out of which God's love flows.

The way of the Christian is the way of devotion, the way of the heart, where the intention is to love God with all of your heart. People fall in love with the Bible or this or that Christian sect, they worship the bridge, the words, the text, but forget to remove the beam in their eye which keeps them from loving. But the way of the Christian is a valid way to God for those who cease to exist in their love for Him. That is why even though I can't worship, I respect and admire all who do. God is a mirror and all the love you give Him you get back.
=================
M: I like to think that faith is a means of believing what reason says makes no sense. Faith is a feeling that can't be affected by reason.

CK: And as I've said, I am fine with that! Because it is honest. Where I get going is when people pretend that their religious beliefs are based on reason, when it is quite obvious that they are not.

M: I know. But it is the 'get going' part that I have a problem with. My job is to ask myself what it means to be bothered by the irrationality of others, is it irrational itself. irrational people are dangerous, in my opinion, when they apply faith where reason should function instead. Rob, for example, makes a joke of religion by thinking he can explain it with reason and becomes a poster boy for why one should avoid it by evidencing dysfunctional thinking.

I used to argue religion, like a fool, with an old man who was the care taker, janitor and gardener of a Catholic church and school and I would see him, on occasion squirting the kids with a garden hose as they would come in. I could see god flowing from his penetrating black eyes and his laughter. He told me his real job was to keep the Priests awake. It's so rare these days to meet somebody who is alive. But any way:
=========
M: Rob thinks that faith is rational and can be explained as a reasonable thing, and we see that this leads to absurdity.

CK: I don't know whom you mean by "we" here, but it's rather obvious that it does not include Rob himself.

M: Obviously, but his personal thinking that what he calls reason isn't, changes nothing regarding his base supposition that God exists. He just lacks the kind of faith that dispenses with reason in that field of endeavor.
==========
M: The answer is obvious. In the stories of Christ in the Bible you can feel pure love. In the stories of Zeus you can feel P & N.

CK: I don't know if that's true or not. But even if it is, that just makes it a good story.

M: As I said, a good story saved my life. As I have said, God is a transformation of vision, the end of thought, fear, doubt, and sin. It is the awakening of man to his true nature. But love is a word. The experience of love ends all words.

I believe there is a science of religion that is inward that is based on experiment and validation, the science of states and that there are schools that teach it, that what we call religion are schools that have ceased to function, that were created for a time and a place, that carry on mechanically with little inner vision, but which still bring many to the light. The Christian religion is full of deep psychological insights that can register with folk who are insightful. Whether the time for religions as we know them to exit the scene is a question I often grapple with. But I don't presume to know the answer.

I rejected my Christian upbringing, what little of it I had, and that left me existentially empty. Zen was what helped me to resolve that. No God in that. Only an experience that some folk had when hit on the head with a cane. Then there is psychoanalysis that speaks of the unconscious and motivations that lie there, and Sufism that speaks of the commanding self, the dominant concealed prejudice that creates our mental prison. All of these techniques point in the same direction, that knowledge is unlearning, that the job is the escape from unconscious prejudice, the assumption that we know something and that it is truth. All of this illusory belief is created by the ego, a defense mechanism we developed to survive our childhood where God was destroyed and replaced by a machine. This can only be known by remembering, but there are many bridges that have been created to transcend the past, to step over what happened in childhood and go straight to realization. And it happens by grace all the time.

My mind tells me there is nothing, but my heart tells me there is love. And my body prefers bananas over apples for some reason. Oh my Beloved, said Mulla Nasrudin, everywhere I look it appears to be Thou. I think the apple of reason and knowledge is what you pay to enter the Garden, your original sin, the assumption that words and ideas and their emotional associations are real things. One can fill the tea cup of love only when it is empty.
 
Here's an interesting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Also, I'm trying to find a historical figure that was alive within say 100 years of Jesus. All I have is Julius Caesar so far. Think about that for a moment though. Caesar was alive 100 years before Jesus and is well documented. Yet Jesus the Messiah, bringer of miracles, ascended to heaven with angels singing and has nothing. Kinda crazy.

Hannibal, Cleopatra, Marc Antony, Spartacus. I wonder how many busts and statues of these guys there are and if any were commissioned during their lives.

Bust of Julius Caesar: http://www.france24.com/en/20080514-oldest-bust-caesar-found-france
 
Last edited:
There's a myriad of texts from the time. Absolutely. I said that earlier but that gets ignored.

Why is the bible better than the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Why is Christianity the right religion and not Scientology, Pastafarianism, Voodoo, Wicca, Islam or even Atheism?

How is Jesus better than believing in Zeus, Vishnu, Buddha, Unicorns, Dragons, or Medusa?

Make a rational argument stating your case.

I am only up to the point of seeing if you or anyone would agree that Jesus existed. That condition if met might separate Jesus from whatever entities you present to the extent it might.
 
I think it's possible. I just don't think it's likely. The Romans loved to document things. Even if they decided not to there were Jewish Historians and lots of surviving texts.

I struggle to believe that the man existed since he wasn't mentioned until 60 years after his death by someone who was born after he died.

It is possible but highly unlikely given the motivation and track record of the church.
 
Tacitus was born 23 years after Jesus died.

We still don't have a basis for his existence. Is it possible? Yes. Probable? No.


I think I used the term "multiple attestation"... but there are other bits like for Pilate found on a bit of rock and the coins with his name... The point is what method of proof is acceptable to conclude Jesus existed... If none is suitable then I wouldn't entertain further dialog as it would not be fruitful.
 
Here's an interesting list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

Also, I'm trying to find a historical figure that was alive within say 100 years of Jesus. All I have is Julius Caesar so far. Think about that for a moment though. Caesar was alive 100 years before Jesus and is well documented. Yet Jesus the Messiah, bringer of miracles, ascended to heaven with angels singing and has nothing. Kinda crazy.

Hannibal, Cleopatra, Marc Antony, Spartacus. I wonder how many busts and statues of these guys there are and if any were commissioned during their lives.

Bust of Julius Caesar: http://www.france24.com/en/20080514-oldest-bust-caesar-found-france


I don't think I'd look for obelisk or other statues of Jesus... There is some evidence like that for Pilate, though. I think all that could exist to support the existence of Jesus are written... And, I'd not even think the Apostles could write... but I don't know...
 
They were fisherman. They would have probably spoken Aramaic. Greek was the language of scholars. So they definitely didn't write anything.
 
There is no proof of anything and many of the things that the religious people believe in is equivalent to believing in unicorns, leprechauns, frost giants, krakens, satyrs, dragons, etc. It's absurd and yes it's irrational.

No it isn't. The main difference between believing in God and Jesus and this stuff you're mentioning is that we have testimony from those living during the time -- and even modern day scholars comfirming it (although some are opposed).

It's only irrational if they're the only ones believing it - that is not the case here.



There seems to be a nearly complete disconnect between reality and religion.

How? Because you say there is? There have been some historical findings confirming the Bible's account convering said event, there are probably some that haven't been confirmed via evidence (hence, absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absense in this case). We just haven't found it yet.

People are inherently stupid. You see this everyday since advertisement and marketing takes advantage of this. People buy a house even though it makes no financial sense and is 10x cheaper to rent. They get an expensive education that doesn't yield a job. They buy something just because it says "sale" even though it's still a really bad deal. They vote for the same candidates their parents vote for and they believe in the same flying spaghetti monster that their parents do. They're just stupid and easily manipulated. Critical thinking is not something we're born with.

At least you're admitting ignorance spreads all walks of life and can encompass anyone. 😛

What's really different today though vs 1000 years ago is the easy access to information. The Catholic church had 1500 years to indoctrinate an entire part of the world without being second guessed since they didn't allow it to be taught in local languages and if you questioned/disagreed with them they punished and/or killed you. Today it's better. Its very easy to figure out if buying something is a good deal today. It's very easy to look up a political candidates positions, his record, and his honesty. It's very easy to critically evaluate organized religion. If you ask the basic questions of authenticity with respect to religion it falls apart very quickly. If you ask common sense questions such as the guy above about Jonah living in the whale or my question about the immaculate conception it falls apart very quickly. It's a myth.

Just because something hasn't been scientifically proven doesn't make it a myth.

The internet is a two-edged sword as well since its so easy to find negative and embellished falsehoods regarding religion and the Bible, or anything. Yes, you can find facts, but it lends to many of the new generation's false premise that all religion is bad and the Bible is a myth. I google this all the time myself and the overwhelming majority is AGAINST religion/Bible.

The best things to do is go straight to the organization to get the info you need, and ask people who have a balanced view of both science and the Bible.



Religion is irrational. It doesn't promote critical thinking. It uses circular logic. It has absurd stories.

It requires critical thinking to translate the Bible and literacy to do so, so you're way off base.


If you need the bible there is something wrong with you. The bible teaches us to stone people to death for adultery, to kill people for swearing, and other absurd things like the gouging out of eyes rather than risking going to hell.

Wrong, again. You need to read it before judging it, because you're wholly wrong.
 
Rob, all that is happening is that what you believe to be true about religion has to be true for God to exist in your opinion and that what you believe to be true other people see as irrational and is. But nothing that you believe to be true religion has to be true for God to exist, that what you defend is an irrational belief system, not God. But if God is really God, He won't depend on what you believe to exist. He will exist regardless of what you or the atheists believe. You take on this religious burden, in my opinion, out of ego. Defenders of faith is a good way to think of oneself as important people. The lover ceases to exist in his Beloved. He is rendered speechless. When you buy hot dogs you don't eat the package.
 
They were fisherman. They would have probably spoken Aramaic. Greek was the language of scholars. So they definitely didn't write anything.

I think Matt was an IRS agent or some such and Paul was a Roman. Both of them would have had some writing capability. Luke, an MD, no doubt could write but, by and large, the folks who'd be closest to Jesus would have no need to read nor write so probably didn't...

It was not like Galilee (50 X 25 miles) was some tiny itty bitty village... The lowest estimate is probably over 350,000 people in the time of Jesus. It is written that Jesus went about doing all manner of interesting things and not one record of this has been produced that was generated contemporaneous with his life... The question, however, ought to be; should one expect there to have been.

Historians generally agree that Jesus was killed by Pilate (assuming they both existed). Which begs the questions to be directed toward the Why... Why would a person be crucified? Was there some level of 'crime' that automatically deserved that punishment?
 
Last edited:
I think Matt was an IRS agent or some such and Paul was a Roman. Both of them would have had some writing capability. Luke, an MD, no doubt could write but, by and large, the folks who'd be closest to Jesus would have no need to read nor write so probably didn't...

It was not like Galilee (50 X 25 miles) was some tiny itty bitty village... The lowest estimate is probably over 350,000 people in the time of Jesus. It is written that Jesus went about doing all manner of interesting things and not one record of this has been produced that was generated contemporaneous with his life... The question, however, ought to be; should one expect there to have been.

Historians generally agree that Jesus was killed by Pilate (assuming they both existed). Which begs the questions to be directed toward the Why... Why would a person be crucified? Was there some level of 'crime' that automatically deserved that punishment?
My guess is that he probably scared the poop out of folk who thought they were the gate keepers on who was going to heaven with all that talk about children and needles.
 
:thumbs up magnus:
good job being always ready to explain your hope.

I enjoy talking about my beliefs and correcting the huge misconceptions regarding what it means to have faith. However, I get bored with solipsistic trolls who seem to get their 'lulz' out of poking the religious. Oh well, back to creating wars, unrest and, civil strife. Anyone seen my pitchfork?
 
My guess is that he probably scared the poop out of folk who thought they were the gate keepers on who was going to heaven with all that talk about children and needles.

It seems aside from procuring the necessities of life, the preoccupation of the folks was God... At least for those oriented in that direction.

I see the goings on back then as akin to folks in this thread but with an agreed hierarchy and authority... Folks looked to the Sanhedrin for their leadership.

As an aside, the Sanhedrin was an interesting 'Government'... The Pharisees and the Sadducee... almost like you'd expect... The Sadducee were rich and catered to the rich and held a majority of the seats in the Sanhedrin while the Pharisees sorta held sway with the common folks but were a minority. But, cuz the folks mostly were common, the Pharisee could push their agenda.... But... Both wanted staying in power.

Apparently, Jesus battled with both of these leader types. And it would be obvious that they saw him as a threat. A threat to them personally but also to what they represented not to mention the creation of discord between the leadership and Rome. They retained their authority only so long as they or the Jewish community did not ruffle the Roman feathers. Zealots were a real pain in the butt for everyone.

So... your needle bit speaks to the Sadducee and the children bit speaks to the Pharisees. And that is contrary to the best interests of both leadership factions.

Jesus, therefore, could easily be seen to be on a probable suicide mission and one prosecuted in a way that would surely end up with him dead.

The question I asked earlier was 'Why' would Jesus have been terminated... Well... that is clear to me... Although Rome had laws regarding evidence the Sanhedrin broke just about every rule in the Jesus inquisition regarding evidence and protocol. ( also can be used as proof against crucifiction as per the bible)

I can just imagine what folks would have said back then IF there had been no miracles being performed....

~~~ Hi there Jesus... Hey guys Jesus here says he is God... Next he's going to say that bacon is a career path for the pig... Not only that but he works on the sabbath.... We ain't slaves... Go away Jesus. Go make some cabinets or something..... Poor guy... He must suffer from an undiagnosed personality delusion syndrome.... probably psychotic and maybe schizoid... Pass the trazodone will ya. ~~~

IF Jesus existed and IF he was crucified it was because he did some stuff that altered the way folks thought and that irked the Sanhedrin....
 
I imagine we can all agree that atheism, or non-theistic beliefs are more widespread now than they have ever been in recorded history. Studies show that the percentage of the population (at least in the U.S., I'm unsure about elsewhere) that don't affiliate themselves with any religion, or reject believe in any godlike entity, continues to increase year after year.

So, I ask those here to ponder: Why is atheism and agnosticism flourishing now when in the past it hasn't?
 
I imagine we can all agree that atheism, or non-theistic beliefs are more widespread now than they have ever been in recorded history. Studies show that the percentage of the population (at least in the U.S., I'm unsure about elsewhere) that don't affiliate themselves with any religion, or reject believe in any godlike entity, continues to increase year after year.

So, I ask those here to ponder: Why is atheism and agnosticism flourishing now when in the past it hasn't?

Less filtered information, especially information that simply isn't spread when filters are in place. I don't just mean the Media/Press either, but information passed between individuals in a direct manner. The Internet is the source of that. Anyone can find the information about the Atheist position and can do it directly from Atheists themselves. It is also done relatively anonymously, so fewer people fear seeking out the info.
 
So, I ask those here to ponder: Why is atheism and agnosticism flourishing now when in the past it hasn't?

If you want my personal opinion, I'd say anti-religious intolerance and prejudice (which moves us back about 60 years) has taken root, and secular superiority is flourishing, and is encouraged.


My biblical observation lies in a prophecy concerning a falling away from faith.

That is all.
 
I imagine we can all agree that atheism, or non-theistic beliefs are more widespread now than they have ever been in recorded history. Studies show that the percentage of the population (at least in the U.S., I'm unsure about elsewhere) that don't affiliate themselves with any religion, or reject believe in any godlike entity, continues to increase year after year.

So, I ask those here to ponder: Why is atheism and agnosticism flourishing now when in the past it hasn't?


I noticed that my kids and grand kids would keep asking questions until finally the only answer is 'Because'....

Faith is the Because in the notion of God... Because is not really an answer to anything but faith is... Both faith and because don't edify the listener but they do the orator...

Today, folks want some sort of tangible proof because they've got educated to recognize that is a reasoned approach to stuff... And, like the kid pushing on the envelope it enables folks to be assertive toward something and probably reasonably so.

Parents today tend not to churchify like they did years ago and that passes on to their kids and so on... I think folks don't need a God to go about their lives so they don't need anything that God entails... It is probably a defense response to their activity is some cases. Not many nut case criminals have faith in a God... They presume God would be or demand good and they are about bad...
 
If you want my personal opinion, I'd say anti-religious intolerance and prejudice (which moves us back about 60 years) has taken root, and secular superiority is flourishing, and is encouraged.


My biblical observation lies in a prophecy concerning a falling away from faith.

That is all.

Shouldn't the bolded read "religious intolerance"? Unless you're trying to make the point that those who preach against religion (the anti-religious) aren't well tolerated (intolerance), which I agree with.

I think it actually has to do with being legally allowed to talk about it, and more recently, not feeling like an outcast if you go public with the fact that you're a non-believer (even though that has a long way to go yet).

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

"The constitutions of seven US states still ban atheists from holding public office"

Discrimination against atheists in the United States occurs in legal, personal, social, and professional contexts. Some American atheists compare their situation to the discrimination faced by ethnic minorities, LGBT communities, and women.

I think it very much parallels the discrimination against homosexuals. Homosexuals have had to "keep it in the closet" for such a long time, due to all sorts of skewed ideas about homosexuals being child molesters, and obviously against "God's plan", etc. Homosexuality has only started to become more accepted in the mainstream, due to diminishing prejudices, and I think atheism and agnosticism still have a ways to go to even catch up to where homosexuality has gotten.
 
Shouldn't the bolded read "religious intolerance"? Unless you're trying to make the point that those who preach against religion (the anti-religious) aren't well tolerated (intolerance), which I agree with.

I think it actually has to do with being legally allowed to talk about it, and more recently, not feeling like an outcast if you go public with the fact that you're a non-believer (even though that has a long way to go yet).

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

"The constitutions of seven US states still ban atheists from holding public office"



I think it very much parallels the discrimination against homosexuals. Homosexuals have had to "keep it in the closet" for such a long time, due to all sorts of skewed ideas about homosexuals being child molesters, and obviously against "God's plan", etc. Homosexuality has only started to become more accepted in the mainstream, due to diminishing prejudices, and I think atheism and agnosticism still have a ways to go to even catch up to where homosexuality has gotten.

Yeah I meant religious intolerance. My bad.

*reading the rest of your post*
 
I noticed that my kids and grand kids would keep asking questions until finally the only answer is 'Because'....

Faith is the Because in the notion of God... Because is not really an answer to anything but faith is... Both faith and because don't edify the listener but they do the orator...

Today, folks want some sort of tangible proof because they've got educated to recognize that is a reasoned approach to stuff... And, like the kid pushing on the envelope it enables folks to be assertive toward something and probably reasonably so.

Parents today tend not to churchify like they did years ago and that passes on to their kids and so on... I think folks don't need a God to go about their lives so they don't need anything that God entails... It is probably a defense response to their activity is some cases. Not many nut case criminals have faith in a God... They presume God would be or demand good and they are about bad...

If your folks said they were good and taught you to hate yourself, being bad is one good way to get even.
 
If your folks said they were good and taught you to hate yourself, being bad is one good way to get even.

Parents sure do fill the tea cup of the child to the point of overflow...

I think it don't much matter the motive of the parents nor what they actually 'say' to the child... it is what the child 'hears' and how that is composed upon the ego.

IOW, a preacher who the child sees as a totalitarian type will consume the love of God being preached to them and MIGHT organize that into self hate especially if there are other input that the young mind does not understand fully.... Good can be bad if Good is surrounded by bad... Maybe...
 
There were historians there and they did document everything else. They just didn't mention Jesus. Why wouldn't they document this? This was the biggest event to happen in human history. To think that the Jews wouldn't document Jesus is silly. Jesus was a Jew. Why wouldn't the Romans document him?
It's a safe bet that Jesus existed. There is documentation from multiple sources. Is this difficult for you to accept?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
 
Last edited:
Back
Top