Why atheists seem to win the argument with theists.

357 posts / 0 new
Last post
Delaware's picture
@ Old man shouts...

@ Old man shouts...

I am no expert on the existence of Jesus in the 1st century. But I think it is well established that he did exist. Here are some examples.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1]

Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14]

Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."[26] There is no indication that writers in antiquity who opposed Christianity questioned the existence of Jesus.[27][28]

These above are from the Historical Jesus section in Wikipedia. I know that is not very scholarly, but it is what I had at hand.

Yes it is at the heart of my faith along with his resurrection.

dogalmighty's picture
Yes it is at the heart of my

Yes it is at the heart of my faith along with his resurrection.

Well that is truly irrational...and sad, that so many fail at reason.

Where is the objective evidence cheesus was real? And if, by miracle you find some, whether this cheesus was divine? Where is the objective evidence that anyone, ever was brought back to life after days of death. The human body is incapable of reanimation.

What is wrong with you, that you fail so miserably at being able to reason? I would be asking myself that question. Unless you are happy with your self induced delusion.

Delaware's picture
@ doG

@ doG

It would be easy for a God that created the universe to be able to resurrect someone. I agree that the human body would be incabable of reanimation.

dogalmighty's picture
You fail at reason...again..

You fail at reason...again...surprise.

For shiznit sake...hear we go again, educating the deluded.

The universe is made up of physical things, those physical things react and interact in specific ways...always. As we are a physical thing...at a cellular level, two things can happen, the cell nearing the end of its life sends a text to little maintenance cells that devour the cell in question, kind of like an altruistic suicide, so that its contents can benefit the whole. Or when the integrity of the outer membrane is compromised, its contents are spilled into the surrounding tissue. This is what happens when the nutrients needed for cellular life, cease...like in certain disease, and death. This degradation happens very quickly depending on temperature of the body. This is the point of no return. In a perfect environment, to slow cellular degradation, the longest human cells can last is around three hours.

So, there is no evidence of anything ever being able to repair cellular death...and with no body function, and no nutrients, regeneration is physically impossible.

Your assertion that god can do it, is unfounded, and unsubstantiated. But this is no surprise from the general malaise of a theistic mind.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "Virtually all scholars of

Jo "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed.[5][6][7][note 1]"

If you're going to rip off Wikipedia without acknowledging it as the source (a breach of forum guideline FYI) you might want to remove their numbered references links in brackets you muppet.

Also what you just did is called an appeal to authority fallacy.

I also think you should do at least some cursory research on authors before ripping off headlines from Google searches. Such sloppy bias is what I'd expect from most theists as biased as you though.

" I wonder how many of these Jesus scholars have taken the time to read Grant’s book since none, as far as I am aware, has ever pointed to Grant’s own argument in that book against the Christ Myth view and his own justification for believing Jesus to have been historical. Or maybe it is because they have read it that they choose to remain quiet about Grant’s arguments."

"His reputation as an historian of ancient history was mixed:

As early as the 1950s, Grant’s publishing success was somewhat controversial within the classicist community. According to The Times:"

I'll let others read the article for themselves, here's a link:

https://vridar.org/2013/02/25/the-historical-jesus-and-the-demise-of-his...

It calls into question the author's methods in the context of his claims of Jesus as an historical figure.

Anyone of us can simply Google a position that reflects the one we want to promote Jo. Your bias here is as self evident as the fact you haven't done any objective research into the topic.

FYI "Most biblical scholars are believers, and the author you cited, Michael Grant, acknowledges they would be hopelessly biased in favour of Jesus existing as an historical figure.

The atheists here are by and large not claiming Jesus definitely didn't exist as a real person. Only that the evidence is dubious to put it mildly, and that not one contemporary of Jesus, let along eye witness wrote a single word about him whilst he was alive, and of course there is as much evidence for unicorns and mermaid as there is to validate the risible superstitious claims he was anything other than human.

Such claims can only objectively be viewed in the context of the all pervasive ignorance and superstition of that epoch.

Maybe Jesus existed, maybe not, but in the context of how important his existence is claimed to have been by his followers, that fact alone should be a strong reason to doubt their claims for his divinity to any remotely objective person.

An omniscient omnipotent deity made flesh, whose methods of recording for antiquity his own message are so sloppy they were left as oral record until after he died, and we can't even be sure he existed at all.

Even the idea this deity was minded to show up just 2000 years ago, in ancient Palestine of all places. Having sat on its hands for the entirety of human existence an admittedly paltry 200000 years, after wasting hundreds of millions tinkering with dinosaur evolution, and many billions of years before this messing gravity and black holes.

How on earth can these facts suggest the universe was created with us in mind to any sane rational or remotely objective person?

Why bother with evolution at all? Why bother with the universe at all? It might have have used its limitless power to create an earth like a flat snooker table inside a bubble, pretty close to what early religions believed.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I did say it came from Wikipedia in my post when I said :These above are from the Historical Jesus section in Wikipedia."

I don't know why God did it the way he did. Maybe the survival of his message against all odds indicates something about it?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I don't know why God did it the way he did. Maybe the survival of his message against all odds indicates something about it?

The various messages of organised christianity survived because:
1: it was adopted as the state religion by the most powerful Military Empire the world had known until that time.
2: the Ruling clergy used the most extreme methods: genocide, assassination, pogroms,lies and mayhem to ensure that their "message" was the only one broadcast. Any others were eradicated from their environs.
3. There are many older religions that have survived and prospered, in other parts of the world. Your logic indicates that these are "truer" than christianity
4> The odds have always been in the favor of organised Roman based (includes all modern protestants) christianity surviving. They abandoned the principles of their prophet.

The last sentence in your message about "survival" is the re iteration from another post. It is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. It is dismissed.

Really you said you wanted to live a life of truth....when will you start?

Sorry for butting in Sheldon...could not resist this.

(edit: For clarity)

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Are referring to the Roman empire? Wasn't Christianity adopted as it state religion by Rome, a few hundred years after it started?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Are referring to the Roman empire? Wasn't Christianity adopted as it state religion by Rome, a few hundred years after it started?

Yes, you are quite correct. From about 90CE, most of the christians were divided into various and many sects, Jewish Christians (which included Gentile converts) were Adoptionists, then there were the Marcionites, a very powerful force for a while the Pauline sects (which later became the Church of Rome( after a lot of in fighting) The Syriac church, The Thomasinian , the Copts, The various and widespread Gnostic both in and out of the Roman Church. All had their own versions of the gospels.
You would probably not have recognised most of them as being christian churches at all. They, like the fractured church of today all had their own versions of the jesus figure, their own versions of the story. They did not survive the Pauline Hegemony and massacres.
The church or sect you belong to has its origins in the Roman Church unless you are Orthodox or a Copt. I can easily demonstrate that should you wish. But I think you know by now that is not an idle threat.

I ask again..you expressed a desire to "live the truth"...when will you start?

(Edit spelling)

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts
@ David Killens

What do you think about the Roman historian Tacitus referring to Jesus in AD 64? Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 15.44
"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their
centre and become popular."

Cognostic's picture
Jo: "What do you think about

Jo: "What do you think about the Roman historian Tacitus referring to Jesus in AD 64 ? Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 15.44"

At least you asked a question and did not make an assertion. HAVE YOU READ TACITUS? Christians blindly believe Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.

LETS SEE:
A Short Note on the Use of Tacitus as a Historical Source for Jesus (By Harry H. McCall at 5/15/2014)

A. It would have been impossible for Tacitus (56 CE – ca 118 CE) to have had any firsthand knowledge of a Historical Jesus since Jesus would have already been dead for at least 23 years before Tacitus was born (assuming the latest date of April 33 CE for the crucifixion).

B. The fire in Rome happened on June 19, 64 which would have made Tacitus only 8 years old at the time. At such an age, Tacitus would have likely been much too young to have recorded anything (if he was literate at that age) especially for a child living in Gaul.

C. The distance from Gaul (setting Paris as the central city) to Jerusalem (by land) is about 3,695 miles. How could Tacitus, who was only 8 years old at the time, have any firsthand knowledge of either the Christians in Roman Palestine or even the fire in Rome over 700 miles away?

D. Tacitus published his first work (Agricola) in 98 CE and his Annals around 114 or 115 or 59 years after the fire in Nero’s Rome and 82 years after the death of the so-called Historical Jesus. Thus, the information about “Christus” (a hapax legomenon) suffering under Pilate shows a confessional belief and not any historical event he knew about. If Jesus is the Christus meant here, then we would expect the Latin “Iesum Christum”. However, Tacitus is likely simply repeating an established tradition as we learn nothing more than that which is not already stated by Josephus and forms the basis for the Apostles Creed: “ . . . passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus, . . . “(suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;).

Reference: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3 rd ed., edited by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth (Oxford University Press, 1996)
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2014/05/a-short-note-on-use-of-tac...

Tacitus is not a first-hand source and that is self-evident to anyone who bothers to check the dates. Does this mean we should dismiss him completely? No, it simply means that we should treat him as less reliable than first hand evidence. He was not there. He is reporting what Christians think and believe and not citing historical facts.

WHAT DID TACITIS ACTUALLY SAY? (He is simply reporting and not confirming.)
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

AT THE VERY BEST - TACITUS IS UNRELIABLE - ALONE - IT MEANS NOTHING.

Sky Pilot's picture
Jo,

delete

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

I have already told you about Tacitus in a previous post. Tacitus was writing in approx 95CE about events in 60Ce.
He was describing, as an historian, writing some 35 years after the events, the beliefs of the Jewish Christians in Rome at the time if the great fire.
Like many theists you have neglected to quote the whole passage which makes this plain.

So, the reference is neither contemporary nor a confirmation of the existence of a Jesus figure. It is merely a description of the beliefs, practises and punishment of a religious cult that were blamed for the Great Fire of Rome in 60CE.

Evidence of the Christian cult iin the 1st century is not evidence of the truth of the modern claims of an historical jesus figure.

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts
@ David Killens

Since Tacitus was a Roman Historian wouldn't he have had access to the official records? There would have been records between Pontius Pilate and Rome, and maybe he was referencing them?

David Killens's picture
Jo, I suggest you learn the

Jo, I suggest you learn the history of the Roman Empire, not from a biblical perspective but purely historical.

David Killens's picture
Additionally Old man, the

Additionally Old man, the prime message of "the meek shall inherit the earth" played directly into the ruling class and the coming feudal system. When you get the citizenry to believe that one day (obviously when they die) they will inherit the earth, they will be meek in life. So once Augustus heralded the emergence of christianity into Roman culture, the people in power have used it continuously.

Sheldon's picture
@Jo

@Jo

1) You've ignored the criticisms of the historian you cited, specifically his claims about an historical Jesus.
2) You've ignored the the fact that important claims in the bible are roundly contradicted by objectively evidenced facts with some hand waving, and yet another unevidenced claim that "god did it." Yey can demonstrate no objective evidence for your claim.
3) Your maybe is naught but an unevidenced assumption.
4) You ignored the point I made about you using an appeal to authority fallacy.
5) You have ignored the point I made about most biblical scholars being believers and therefore having an inerrant bias towards the existence of n historical Jesus, According to the historian you cited.
6) You have ignored my point about there being no evidence for any of the bible's supernatural claims about Jesus, just third hand hearsay decades or even centuries after the fact, written by unknown authors, and falsely assigned names to make them appear by early christians as if they were accounts by condemnatory disciples.
7) You completely ignored my point that such claims can only objectively be viewed in the context of the all pervasive ignorance and superstition of the epoch that produced them.
8) You ignored my point that you're religion claims an omniscient omnipotent deity made flesh, used methods of recording for antiquity his own message that were so sloppy they were allegedly left as nothing but an oral record until long after he died, thus we can't even be sure he existed at all.
9) You have ignored the fact that humans evolved just 200000 years ago, and were not created.
10) You have ignored the fact that the universe is billions of years old, and what this means for the christian idea that it was created with humans in mind, when our species is a mere 200k years old, and evolution of dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years.

Finally you ignored my questions:

1) How on earth can these facts suggest the universe was created with us in mind to any sane rational or remotely objective person?
2) Why bother with evolution at all? Why bother with the universe at all? It might have have used its limitless power to create an earth like a flat snooker table inside a bubble, pretty close to what early religions believed.

...and you simply waved them away with "I don't know" which would be fine if you hadn't immediately made the unevidenced assertion "god did it this way". The point you are ignoring is your religion got it all wrong, and the facts don't support the claims that a deity created everything with us in mind.

If you're going to respond the don't simply repeat your claims and ignore the content of my post, as that is simply preaching at me. I already know what you believe, try addressing my comments in the post if you have any cogent compelling answers.

You'll be the first theists ever to do so mind.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Sorry I ignored your questions. Here are my answers.

1. Yes I did ignore that. I was not really trying to appeal to authority, I was just trying to put in some quotes that said what I thought and to show that it was just not some idea I had created.

2. I don't know of any evidenced facts that directly contradict the Bible. I have thought long and hard about many claims like that, but have always found them to be opinion, misunderstandings, or just not true.

3. I did not mean it for anything more than an assumption. I was just giving it a good guess.

4. I wasn't making an appeal to authority. Just trying to be a little scholarly instead of just spouting my unsupported claims.

5. Yes, I suspect they would have a bias. But so wouldn't an atheist who was a biblical scholar have a bias against the historical Jesus. I think someone mentioned Bart Ehrman. No one was chiseling Jesus name onto obelisks at the time. So probably not much historical evidence should be expected. The Christians were on the perifery and third class citizens. No one was chronicling there deeds.

6. What evidence should be expected. Even if someone had the foresight to bottle up some of the water, before it was turned into wine. Then bottled up some of the wine that had been water. If these bottles were now found and analyzed by scientist. What would they find? The wine would have some green glowing goo in it that could not be explained? No, just water and wine from the 1st century Palestine area. Even if you could witness the miracle first hand and been able to keep some samples. It would not show anything like I think you are wanting.

If you will indulge one more example. If a person who has cancer prays to be healed and God heals them. When they go to the doctor he might not be able to say why. Even if it could be determined how it was done, it would not be anything other than natural looking. If there was something there that was supernatural how would you detect it? How do you test supernatural things with natural things?

7. I agree that we have to understand the original audience. That is why sometimes people misunderstand parts of the Bible.

8. I agree that my religion claims an omniscient omnipotent deity made human. And that there were no attempts to initially record the message. Perhaps they were in survival mode and they thought he was coming back real soon. So they didn't see the need to record for posterity. A few decades later some realized the need and hence the Gospels and Acts. The NT is partially attempts to write the history of the early Christians with consultations from eye witnesses. Jesus was not self promoting. He often told people not to say anything when he performed miracles. So it would not have been in keeping with his plan if he had hired historians and photographers.

9. I agree that humans just evolved 200,000 years ago and that God just came as a human 2,000 years ago. Created does not have to mean instantaneously or quickly. It could have been done over a long time period.

10. I agree that the universe is billions of years old. I am just being honest and not trying to wave it away, when I say I don't know all the reason why God did it that way. I speculate that it is more evidence of his grandeur, and majesty. It shows us how God has prepared a place for us to dwell in communion and harmony with him and with nature. I think that is one of the main themes in the first few chapters in Genesis and it reoccurs throughout the Bible.

More questions I am now not ignoring.
1. One occurrence of life in only one place in the entire vast universe covering 14 billion years (as far as we know). That points to something very very special. It indicates it was not just a product of a mindless lucky happenstance. That mind, intent, logic, reason, and purpose was behind it. All this time and effort leading to a place where brilliant beings can have a relationship with their creator. Maybe the long time shows how important the relationship is. If something takes a long time to build that can indicate complexity, grandeur, and massiveness.

2. Maybe because a snooker table created instantaneous inside a bubble would not portray the mind behind it and his intentions. God's intent in Genesis was not to correct the original ancient audiences scientific misunderstanding of cosmology. He had more important things in mind. He was explaining the purpose and reason more than explaining exactly how and when.

Sorry I made you feel like I was waiving away your questions. I didn't think you were that interested in what I had to say. I also thought you were telling me things in the form of a question. My bad, I apologize and will try to do better.

I am not trying to preach. I hope I have done better at addressing your comments. I don't think I have arrived at cogent and compelling yet, but will keep trying. Thanks for listening.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

The Christians were on the perifery and third class citizens. No one was chronicling there deeds.

Where on earth were you when factual history was handed out? Hiding behind the door.?..First all the early christians were jews, they had to convert to jewry, undergo circumcision and observe all the laws. As a sect of jewry they were accorded the same privileges as the jews...and jews were the ONLY recorded people allowed to skip the annual sacrifice (a pinch of incense) to the God Emperor.
In 60 CE the great Fire of Rome was blamed on christians as were a lot of other things. Their immunity from the sacrifice was withdrawn (as was the jews as a population) and it is recorded many were killed, torn apart by dogs and generally treated as terrorists are today. That is because they were considered terrorists by the ordinary people of Rome.
In 70CE Jerusalem ( a hotbed of revolutionaries and terrorists) was sacked and the Temple destroyed. Christians, as a jewish sect were forced to disperse, which they did, all over the Roman world.

There immunity was restored in about 75CE and continued for 20 years when it was again withdrawn as they were largely gentile by now and the Emporer had josephus as a favourite..he was writing the History of the Jewish people by then...., Some were executed for failing to sacrifice or pay the tax to the Emperor. There was no "third class citizens" in general for belonging to one of the many christian sects.. Many christians were Roman Citizens and entitled to all the benefits that citizenship entailed. That christianity was held to be a "slave" and woman's religion by some is evident. Do some reading.

I think, Jo, you have been reading far too many church fairy stories. The truth is far more mundane. Many more chriotians sacrificed to the Emperor and paid their taxes than were ever 'martyred'

I am astonished that you have reached maturity and have yet to realise what thin gruel you have been fed by the church.

Sheldon's picture
1. That is the definition of

1. That is the definition of an appeal to authority fallacy. So now you know his conclusion for an historical Jesus is not universally accepted as objective by historians and scholars you should retract your claim. Better still do some research yourself.

2. Yes you do, don't be silly, and scientific facts are not merely opinions, by definition they have to have a weight of objective evidence that goes beyond any reasonable doubt.

3. My point precisely, unevidenced assumption is all you offered, and this is meaningless.

4. You were making an appeal to authority fallacy, and you ignored me when I pointed it out, and now you're pretending it wasn't a fallacy, it was. Using words like scholarly won't make it less fallacious, you cited someone as an authority, instead of offering objective evidence for the claim.

5. Then why cite people's opinion when you know most of them are biased? No an atheist need not have any bias against the claim an historical Jesus existed, why on earth would they? I think you are still struggling to properly understand what atheism is. Are you unable to be objective about the existence of mermaids?

6. So you agree that "no evidence for any of the bible's supernatural claims about Jesus, just third hand hearsay decades or even centuries after the fact, written by unknown authors, and falsely assigned names to make them appear by early christians as if they were accounts by condemnatory disciples." Then why do you believe the claims?

7. That's not remotely what I said, all we need to understand is that there is no objective evidence for any of the bible's supernatural claims, nor can there be you have now admitted, and the claims can only objectively be viewed in the context of the all pervasive ignorance and superstition of the epoch that produced them. There is no hidden esoteric message there.

8. You're missing the point again, an omniscient omnipotent deity could paint it's message in the sky in 100 foot letters of fire and make every person on earth understand it. Your religion claims this deity made no effort at all to record a single word it supposedly shared during it's visit. The idea this was the most important thing that has and ever will happen is absurd in the context not one word was recorded for posterity.

9. Created does not have to mean instantaneously or quickly., BUT THAT IS WHAT YOUR BIBLE CLAIMS HAPPENED. There is no evidence that humans are created, and this claim is directly contradicted by the known scientific fact that all living things evolved, and humans far from being the most important living things as the bible claims, didn't evolve until just 200000 years ago. making unevidenced assumptions that don't remotely match what the bible claims doesn't make the biblical claims MORE compelling, theses are just desperate attempts to rationalise biblical errancy with yet more unevidenced assumptions.

10. You've gone from ignoring the fact to making unevidenced assumptions that ignore the fact that the universe is billions of years old, and what this means for the christian idea that it was created with humans in mind, when our species is a mere 200k years old, and evolution of dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years.

----------------------------------------

1. I asked "How on earth can these facts suggest the universe was created with us in mind to any sane rational or remotely objective person?"

All you have offered is another long list of evidenced assumptions. No sane rational or remotely objective person accepts completely unevidenced assumptions, you've added another one that life in this universe has only existed in one place. How do you know this exactly?

2. Assumption after unevidenced assumption, and you have not answered my question again, why would a deity with limitless power and knowledge waste billions of years on an incomprehensibly massive universe, the vast majority of which is entirely hostile to life, and then use evolution, wasting hundreds of millions of years evolving dinosaurs, if as the bible claims humans are the entire purpose of the universe's "creation"? The simple answer that requires no assumptions is it wouldn't, the claim is beyond irrational, it's absurd.

Delaware's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

I am going to combine some of the questions you asked points I think you misunderstood or did not respond to.

1-4. I don't know if you have read Old Man Shouts posts on this string, but he mentioned Philo of Alexandria. Why is it not an appeal to authority for him to bring Philo into the discussion, as a reference, but is when I bring someone into the discussion as a reference?. I am not clear when an authoritative source is OK or not.

5. An atheist is by definition not biased? Yes, I am able to be objective about mermaids. We agree on mermaids. Except I would say I don't believe in mermaids, you would say you have lack of faith.

6 + 7. I think you swatted away my answer on this and my questions to you. If you had a sample of the water that was turned into wine and the wine that had been water. How would you test it? What should it show if it was a miracle?

8. Yes, God could paint 100 foot letters in the sky and prove himself to everyone. You assume it is because he does not exists. But it could be that his goals and strategies are different than proving himself beyond any doubt at this time. Do you really want him to prove himself and removed all doubt?

Not one word was recorded, yet we are talking about it 2000 years later. Maybe he knew what he was doing after all?

9. The Bible is not in conflict with evolution. It says " in the DAY that God created the heavens and the earth". Day could mean 24 hours, or an era, or an epoch. Couldn't God have created all the variations of life through evolution?

10, 1+2. I think you have waived away the evidence I gave. I said that as far as we know life has only occurred once, in the universe and on this planet. So going with what we do know, not just making baseless claims. One has to ask why in this incomprehensible vast and old universe (the vast majority of it entirely hostile to life) did it produce life only once. And that life is very advanced (humans). A very plausible explanation as to why God did it the way is because it represent something about him. Just as we can get some measure of understanding form an artist or architects mind and personality from their creations. We can in someways understand God by understanding nature. The beauty, the grandeur, the vastness in space and time, and the wonder of it all, testify of its creator.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "If you had a sample

@Jo Re: "If you had a sample of the water that was turned into wine and the wine that had been water. How would you test it? What should it show if it was a miracle?"

Um, just scrolling through and this caught my attention. Just wondering what all the fuss is about in this particular case. I have an uncle who use to turn water into wine all the time when I was a kid. Does that mean my uncle is Jesus?

Sheldon's picture
1-4 I've explained twice what

1-4 I've explained twice what an appeal to authority fallacy is, and why your claim was a text book example. You cited an historian that supported your belief in an historical Jesus as an expert, you neither evidenced the claim, nor did even some cursory research, as I showed by linking an article highlighting mainstream criticisms of his work, specifically his claim for an historical Jesus.

5. You've completely misrepresented what I said? I said an atheist need not be biased against an historical Jesus, why would they? (as you claimed without any evidence), and you respond with "An atheist is by definition not biased? ". So if you're able to be objective about things you don't believe exist why would you make the unevidenced claim that atheist are biased against an historical Jesus?

6+7. I have no interest in wild speculation about what hypothetically might be considered proper evidence for the supernatural. It's enough that no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for any supernatural claims. Do you spend much time imagining what might prove the existence of Leprechauns?

8. Oh dear you seem determined to keep missing the point, and no I have assumed nothing about any deity's existence or non -existence. It is you who is making unevidenced assumptions about a deity Jo, I don't believe any deity exists because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for one. What's more it is an objective fact that humans create fictional deities, and that the claims christians make are the same as all the other religious apologists who believe in other deities.

"Do you really want him to prove himself and removed all doubt?"

Now that would be an odd desire for an atheist wouldn't it, why do theists struggle with this concept so much? Do you spend much time hoping garden fairies would prove they were real? How about Zeus?

"Not one word was recorded, yet we are talking about it 2000 years later. Maybe he knew what he was doing after all?"

Another unevidenced assumption that is roundly contradicted by the absurdity of claiming an omniscient omnipotent deity took the time to visit ancient Palestine, in purportedly the most important event ever, but failed to record an single word about it. Like all the theists I speak to you are ignoring the facts and desperately clutching at straws. We are still discussing the belief because people cling to it despite being unable to demonstrate any objective evidence to support it.

9. Of course the bible is in direct conflict with evolution, don't be absurd. HUMAN BEINGS EVOLVED as did all living things- THEY WERE NOT CREATED IN THEIR CURRENT FORM AS THE BIBLE CLAIMS. The two claims are mutually exclusive.

"Day could mean 24 hours, or an era, or an epoch."

That's just beyond idiotic, if you're going to distort what it says in such a ridiculous fashion then it has lost all meaning anyway. Objectively speaking which is more rational, that ancient ignorant humans made an error, or that an omniscient omnipotent deity communicated a message about humans being created in a day, but really meant they evolved over billions of years?

"Couldn't God have created all the variations of life through evolution?"

There is no evidence for a deity, and genesis is as far removed from the scientific facts about the origins of species as it is possible to imagine.

10 You gave no evidence at all, so there was nothing to waive.

"I said that as far as we know life has only occurred once, in the universe and on this planet. "

And I asked you to evidence this claim, since the universe is 13.772 billion years old and is vast beyond our comprehensions too many solar systems for us to comprehend it's a pretty large assumptions as well.

"So going with what we do know, not just making baseless claims. One has to ask why in this incomprehensible vast and old universe (the vast majority of it entirely hostile to life) did it produce life only once. "

So know you claim to know life only occurred once? Dear oh dear Jo, evidence this claim then please, which should be easy if you know it it be true.

"A very plausible explanation as to why God did it the way"

You have offered no objective evidence any deity exists, nor have you offered any expansionist of anything, just endless assumptions, and the word plausible there is hilarious fair play. Your unevidenced assumption here is neither reasonable nor probable. You might just as well claim Zeus created it all.

"We can in someways understand God by understanding nature. "

Another unevidenced piece of empty rhetoric Jo, nothing that we have properly understood in nature through objective scientific evidence requires any deity or anything supernatural to explain it. So your claim is demonstrably false as well.

"The beauty, the grandeur, the vastness in space and time, and the wonder of it all, testify of its creator."

No it doesn't, you're just lining unevidenced claims and empty rhetoric up one after the other Jo. And I am afraid your spiel typifies why I find religious apologetics so unconvincing, because it offers nothing objective to support it's endless claims, and you have made up your mind your deity is real, and are not interested in examining the claim with any objectivity or an open mind. Again your claim might just as easily be made by someone who believes in Thor or Wotan, and it is hard to see why it would be any less compelling.

Not one shred of objective evidence has been demonstrated for any deity, and your arguments are just an endless string of unevidenced assertions and assumptions, many of which are directly contradicted by the facts Jo.

If a deity is responsible for life existing it clearly dedicated vastly far more time to dinosaurs than humans,, and wasted billions of years before bothering to develop our solar system at all, and did in the same way we now know all other solar systems form. Not only is this directly at odds with the creation myth in Genesis, it directly contradicts the idea the universe was created with humans in mind.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@Jo

@Jo
So we can be happy to know you have no evidence for the existence of the jesus figure as described in the gospels.

Many scholars do ascribe to the theory that a HUMAN figure may have been the inspiration for the much later jesus story, first written by an anonymous storyteller we now call Mark. This was some 60 years after the alleged events...for which there is no evidence at all.

This the 'probability theory. It is espoused by such notable scholars as Ehrman. Others , like Carrier, reject this notion and maintain that without evidence the whole early texts are all political fiction. You really should do some reading.

There is NO evidence at all contemporary to the Jesus figure in the gospels. NONE. No evidence at all for a resurrection, no evidence (and much against) for the divinity of any figure in the 1st third of the 1st Century CE.

It seems your faith is built on nothing. You should follow up those footnotes in the wiki pages. If you are at all interested in living an honest life, and finding truth (as you claim) you will find I am writing nothing but facts.

My personal view is that the existence of a human figure corresponding to the Jesus figure is "not proven" ( a verdict in Scots Law) . The existence of a divine jesus figure as described in the gospels.? Improbable to a point that it is not worth considering.

Thanks for your reply. I will await your further thoughts.

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

To the best of my knowledge there was not a lot of historians around back then writing about everything going on. So a group of third class citizens in some backwater province, believing in some new figure, probably would not have attracted a lot of videographers.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

To the best of my knowledge there was not a lot of historians around back then writing about everything going on. So a group of third class citizens in some backwater province, believing in some new figure, probably would not have attracted a lot of videographers

Almost a smart ass reply but completely misses the mark and displays your ignorance of the origins of your faith.

There were many historians around at the time. Some of them living in Jerusalem...Philo for instance whose "logos" became incorporated into Christianity at the turn of the 1st Century.
What is striking is that many other Messianic prophets were mentioned at the time, some by the military and some by historians both Roman and Jewish I can supply you a list. They all performed"miracles" claimed to raise the dead yadda yadda...you should read about them.

Yet NOT ONE mention of the jesus character. Let that sink in, lots of other prophets mentioned but NOT ONE mention of the jesus character

In fact let us see how eager you really are about living the truth: here's the prophets mentioned in many places (including the bible): yet not one for your favourite guy...what does that tell you?

Some of these guys were crucified, some claimed to be son of god...knock your self out, just google each name then start wondering why the jesus figure never made the list despite all the miracles, arguments and of course the resurrection, darkling sky, Jewsih zombies,, eye witnesses etc,,,

Abu Isa
Abraham Abulafia
Athronges
Simon bar Kokhba
Moses Botarel
Egyptian (prophet)
Eve Frank
Jacob Frank
Judah ben Shalom
Shukr Kuhayl I
Lukuas
Menahem ben Hezekiah
Menahem ben Judah
Mordecai Mokiach
Solomon Molcho
Moses of Crete
Nehemiah ben Hushiel
Judah Leib Prossnitz
Jacob Querido
David Reubeni
Simon of Peraea
Theudas
Sabbatai Zevi

Have a great day.

Cognostic's picture
Jo Jo Jo: How ignorant can

Jo Jo Jo: How ignorant can you be! The Romans were excellent record keepers. We have documents supporting the identity of many itinerant preachers that existed during the life of Jesus. Just nothing for Jesus. Menahem ben Judah, Bar Kokba, Moses of Crete, David Alroy. Abraham Abulafia. And many more. The JEWISH WORLD was full of Messiahs. We know about many because people wrote about them. NO ONE WROTE ABOUT JESUS. My favorite was Appelonious of Tayana. Many of the Jesus miscalls were done by him and some believe he was the real Jesus. WE HAVE NOTHING FOR YOUR JESUS CHARACTER. HISTORIANS WROTE ABOUT SPECIAL EVENTS AND JESUS IS NOT AMONG THEM,

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Sorry, I thought my attempt at humor and tongue in cheek would be appreciated.

You are many miles ahead of me on the subject you of Philo and so on. I don't know why he didn't mention Jesus. I understand what you are saying. I have a friend and fellow Christian who is much more educated in the matters you mentioned. A couple of years ago I asked him if there was a lot of contemporary historical evidence of Jesus. He said there was very little. I think he mentioned Josephus.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

Oh, your humour was appreciated. I appreciate a little zest in debate. And as you have noticed, I can give it back...

A couple of years ago I asked him if there was a lot of contemporary historical evidence of Jesus. He said there was very little. I think he mentioned Josephus.

There are two references to a Jesus in Josephus, which are not contemporary to the alleged gospel accounts.

The first reference is in book 18 of Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, which was written about at the turn of the 1st/2nd Century (about 93-100CE). Not only not contemporary by some 60 odd years but the news gets worse.

That entry (Chapter 3, 3 ) that mentions Jesus "a wise man" is now generally accepted to be a 3rd century interpolation...in other words a FAKE.

The second entry in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 refers to "James, brother (in or of) Jesus" . Again written some 60 years after the alleged events it is important to notice that scholars are divided as the whether James (head of the Temple) was a brother "in" Jesus (christ.).i.e part of the jewish christian brotherhood, or, a brother of Jesus. There were several prominent priests/rabbis called "jesus"in the temple at the time and if it is " brother "of" Jesus (Yehshua) it could well be referencing one of them and was in all probability referencing one of the high priests.

So you see that not only Josephus writing only from hearsay some 60 years after the alleged events he probably was not in the second reference writing about your version of Jesus anyway! So inconclusive at best.

Whichever way to look " there is no contemporary evidence for a jesus figure as described in the gospels. None. " That's not "very little....that is none, zero, zilch , nada.No evidence for a human figure as described in the gospels and certainly absolutely none for a magical jesus figure.

I think you should recap on your cherished beliefs and look closely to the ones proven to completely lack evidence and discard them in favor of the truth.
Then look very closely at your beliefs that are fostered by magical claims, they will be harder to jettison, but you did say you wanted to live your life in the truth.
Or was that just a conversational piece and you fully intend to disregard all the evidence (or absence thereof) and continue with something you know is false?
Remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be entertained....

(edit format)

Delaware's picture
@ Old Man Shouts

@ Old Man Shouts

Glad you appreciated my humor. I have noticed yours and was trying to reciprocate.

I have some questions on Philo not mentioning Jesus.
1. I have read that Philo also did not mention the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Do you know any thing about that?
2. If some new writings of Philo were found that did mention Jesus, would you now think that Jesus did exist?
3. Now I am going to drop some names and appeal to authority (joke). Richard Dawkins has conceded that Jesus did exists. Most everything I can find indicates that experts in the field generally agree that Jesus did exist. Here is a quote form a famous and respected expert in the field that is an atheist. Bart Erhman said the below. I have edited it for brevity but have tried to keep the intended meaning.
"Did Jesus Exist?, I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar of antiquity, of biblical studies, of classics, and of Christian origins in this country and, in fact, in the Western world agrees. Many of these scholars have no vested interest in the matter. As it turns out, I myself do not either. I am not a Christian, and I have no interest in promoting a Christian cause or a Christian agenda. I am an agnostic with atheist leanings, and my life and views of the world would be approximately the same whether or not Jesus existed. My beliefs would vary little. But as a historian I think evidence matters. And the past matters. And for anyone to whom both evidence and the past matter, a dispassionate consideration of the case makes it quite plain: Jesus did exist."

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.