Atheism causes creationism

Newsite · 23-11-2011 02:47PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes Newsite, that is the point. Despite it being utterly obvious to most people, and clearly demonstrated by the evidence, that Scientology is a lie some people continue to believe it is true.

Zombrex. Scientology is a lie because there is no evidence . It is not a lie because it has been demonstrated by evidence to be so. It's like me saying that there is planet called ipeilele which orbits planet kelekel. It's ridiculous because there is no evidence for it. And so it is with Scientology.

The evidence does not demonstrate that Christianity is a lie

I hereby propose that anyone who henceforth draws parallels between Scientology and Christianity as a means of proving that Christianity is a 'lie' to be found guilty of the charge of idiocy of the nth degree. Further backing:

The basis for Scientology is based on a book a dude wrote about a character named Xenu who lived 95 million years ago and arrived on a spaceship, to a volcano. Or something very similar I believe. Nobody can use historical analysis to determine the truth of Scientology.

The basis for Christianity is on a very significant body or writings which has survived to this very day, the most recent parts of which are based around a historical character which the most eminent historians and analysts agreed existed, and, most importantly, whose manner of death in terms of the resurrection was not refuted by those who were around, in the flesh, to easily refute it. And, who, as a dominant group at the time, could have easily refuted it.

A quick glance at the differences between the two would support my proposed motion, nein?

Zombrex wrote: »

So why would you assume at all that if Christianity had been discredited in the early days of the movement the early Christians would have stopped following it?

Except it was not discredited?! It really does beggar belief that you are missing the fact that it was not discredited!

Zombrex wrote: »

Your position has been discredited. You are simply ignoring this. You are, ironically, a perfect demonstration of how you say humans won't act.

Nice try.

Again, Christianity was not discredited. In fact, it was acknowledged as a growing movement for which its followers died. These initial followers were people with either first-hand knowledge of Jesus, or who lived during this lifetime. The Romans/Jews could easily have discredited the claims of the divinity of Jesus by producing His body. So....where are the accounts where they produced His body? Because that's all they'd have to do to put the 'myths' of the resurrection straight to bed, right? That's all that would have been needed to save all those Christians from death, right? The Romans could have been off persecuting some other groups instead, because as soon as the Christians would have seen that the resurrection was a lie, they would simply have gone about their business and forgotten about this Jesus who never really rose from the dead after all.

Zombrex wrote: »

They did, they say he rose from the dead and created a narrative that he in fact knew he was going to die and wanted to die and that this was in fact necessary for all man kind's salvation.

I refer you to the above. Show me where the Romans produced the body. Don't you think it strange that very highly-esteemed first century historians such as Tacitus, writing a mere few decades after Christ's death and with their reputations at stake, might have mentioned that they thought the whole thing was a fake, based on their careful research? Instead, you have the opposite - they freely mention that the events of the Gospels happened, they do not deny that they happened.

Many Roman critics attacked the philosophy of Christianity, but they were unable to attack its historical accuracy, as they were witness to the events of the New Testament. The Church could not have grown in Jerusalem if Jesus' own generation (who had Him put to death) could have immediately exposed the resurrection as lies.

Don't confuse attacking the idea of Christianity with attacking the historical accuracy of what happened.

Along with the empty tomb is the fact that the corpse of Jesus was never found. Not one historical record from the first or second century is written attacking the factuality of the empty tomb or claiming discovery of the corpse. Tom Anderson, former president of the California Trial Lawyers Association states:

"Let's assume that the written accounts of His appearances to hundreds of people are false. I want to pose a question. With an event so well publicized, don't you think that it's reasonable that one historian, one eye witness, one antagonist would record for all time that he had seen Christ's body? . . . The silence of history is deafening when it comes to the testimony against the resurrection."

Zombrex wrote: »

For all we know Jesus was screaming like a child begging to be taken down of the cross and recanting anything he preached. But you ain't going to find that in the official Christian records.

In the official records you will find a nobel death with purpose.

Your lack of insight and analysis appears breathtaking. 'The official Christian records' - why are you looking to those? You guys don't seem to want to look to the Christian records, not least the Bible, at all. Notice how I haven't referred to Bible records.

If what you are saying above could have been the case, any Roman at the time could have said so, and any historian could have recorded this 'fact'. But they didn't. So using pure logic, it's probably just blasphemy on your part, correct?

Zombrex wrote: »

Shockingly this is also what you find in Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard died full of the medical drugs that his religion preached didn't work and were in fact really bad for you. Do you find this the official records? No, you find that Hubbard in fact shed his body in order to ascent to a higher plan of existence to continue his important work.

See above for my proposed motion re the verdict on those who insert references to flying spaceships and a character named Xenu.

Delirium · 23-11-2011 03:03PM

Didn't Tacitus refer to Christianity as evil? Much like scientology is viewed as today in most countries?

You haven't provided any argument for Christianity other than to say that a man named Jesus existed and was put to death on the cross. You haven't provided any evidence/writings from the time of Christ to back up what you've said.

As for the Romans not producing the corpse of Christ. It's quite reasonable to say that the followers of Christ could have hid his body to help bolster their story of a resurrected Christ.

Newsite · 23-11-2011 03:14PM

koth wrote: »

Didn't Tacitus refer to Christianity as evil? Much like scientology is viewed as today in most countries?

You are supporting my argument here re 'attacking the philosophy of Christianity', rather that the historical accuracy. All this proves is that he was an opponent of Christianity, like other avid opponents of the time who did not deny the facts of what happened!

As a high-brow Roman historian avidly opposed to all things Christian - wouldn't item number one on your list be 'disprove every single fact those people come up with'?

koth wrote: »

You haven't provided any argument for Christianity other than to say that a man named Jesus existed and was put to death on the cross. You haven't provided any evidence/writings from the time of Christ to back up what you've said.

Well, we have the Bible, which could have been refuted at the time?! There are various references by Roman writers to back up what I've said. I accept that all are hotly disputed for various reasons. All are disputed by both secular and religious alike.

There is one case where a historian started out denying the resurrection happened, but ended up changing his mind on further analysis. Will try dig out the name. Also don't forget the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which would have destroyed a lot of evidence and a lot of writings.

koth wrote: »

As for the Romans not producing the corpse of Christ. It's quite reasonable to say that the followers of Christ could have hid his body to help bolster their story of a resurrected Christ.

So His followers would have had the means and sway to hide the body, even though the Romans had just crucified Him? I think they might have been calling the shots at that stage.

fatmammycat · 23-11-2011 03:23PM

Maybe the Romans were not overly interested in his body after he was dead. His death was all the evidence needed to show that he was mortal man, flesh and blood. Everything else is fairy tale and myth.
As to the bible, stories of men being swallowed by whales, women turning to salt, women made from ribs, old man gathering every animal in the world, oh and everthing they needed to eat in order to survive. Yeah, hardly a remarkably accurate book.

Delirium · 23-11-2011 03:24PM

Newsite wrote: »

You are supporting my argument here re 'attacking the philosophy of Christianity', rather that the historical accuracy. All this proves is that he was an opponent of Christianity, like other avid opponents of the time who did not deny the facts of what happened!

I was just commenting that he referred to them as evil. So I find it difficult to believe he wrote historical documents stating that Christ was the son of God made man.

As a high-brow Roman historian avidly opposed to all things Christian - wouldn't item number one on your list be 'disprove every single fact those people come up with'?

He didn't write anything that proves the bible is fact AFAIK.

Well, we have the Bible, which could have been refuted at the time?! There are various references by Roman writers to back up what I've said. I accept that all are hotly disputed for various reasons. All are disputed by both secular and religious alike.

I've already asked for sources (other than the bible) that back up the claims of the bible with regards to Christ being the son of God.

There is one case where a historian started out denying the resurrection happened, but ended up changing his mind on further analysis. Will try dig out the name. Also don't forget the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which would have destroyed a lot of evidence and a lot of writings.

I understand evidence can be destroyed over time, especially after 2000 years but that doesn't mean we should put skepticism to one side.

So His followers would have had the means and sway to hide the body, even though the Romans had just crucified Him? I think they might have been calling the shots at that stage.

You do realise that the bible states that the Romans gave the body of Christ to his followers to place in a tomb?

Knasher · 23-11-2011 03:25PM

Newsite wrote: »

Scientology is a lie because there is no evidence . It is not a lie because it has been demonstrated by evidence to be so. It's like me saying that there is planet called ipeilele which orbits planet kelekel. It's ridiculous because there is no evidence for it. And so it is with Scientology.

The evidence does not demonstrate that Christianity is a lie

So scientology is presumed false because there is no evidence to prove it's true, but christianity is presumed true because there is no evidence (debatable) to prove it false.

23-11-2011 03:42PM

Newsite wrote: »

You are supporting my argument here re 'attacking the philosophy of Christianity', rather that the historical accuracy. All this proves is that he was an opponent of Christianity, like other avid opponents of the time who did not deny the facts of what happened!

So basically you're saying there's no classical historians who dispute the claims of Jesus.
But those who do are clearly just being biased as evidenced by them disputing the claims of Jesus.

Well that's a convenient twisting and skewering of logic.
Almost the exact kind used by Scientologists to explain away all the bad things they don't want to explain.

Newsite · 23-11-2011 04:08PM

Knasher wrote: »

So scientology is presumed false because there is no evidence to prove it's true, but christianity is presumed true because there is no evidence (debatable) to prove it false.

Why are you twisting my words - I'm not saying the lack of evidence presumes it is true, I am saying that the evidence proving it untrue is lacking, and that famous first century historians could have discredited it, but didn't.

And yes, Scientology is presumed false because there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that it is true.

When you are examining historical rather than scientific claims, you can't perform tests to prove that something is true, or not true.

Without that mechanism, all you have is first-hand and second-hand and third-hand accounts, and so on. How do you know that there was really a man named Hitler? You never met him, and there's a better than even chance you weren't even alive when he was living. Of course, you know what he looked like, because we have TV and film. But how do you know that's really him? Because we have people alive when he was alive to verify accounts of him, and we have people who wrote about him in the decades following his death.

Given we don't have pictures of visuals of Jesus, we can only rely on the accounts of those who were alive when He was alive - and the accounts of those writing after His death. You examine these accounts, and the motivations of those writing them.

Newsite · 23-11-2011 04:11PM

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you're saying there's no classical historians who dispute the claims of Jesus.
But those who do are clearly just being biased as evidenced by them disputing the claims of Jesus.

Well that's a convenient twisting and skewering of logic.
Almost the exact kind used by Scientologists to explain away all the bad things they don't want to explain.

I don't know what it is about this forum, but do you read posts with opposite points of view, and see only what you want to see?

Kindly point me to where I say or allege that there are no classical historians who dispute the claims of Jesus. I said that highly regarded and notable historians at the time did not dispute the claims - in fact they write like His claims and His existence are a given.

You mentioned Scientology....careful....:)

23-11-2011 04:15PM

Newsite wrote: »

I don't know what it is about this forum, but do you read posts with opposite points of view, and see only what you want to see?

Kindly point me to where I say or allege that there are no classical historians who dispute the claims of Jesus. I said that highly regarded and notable historians at the time did not dispute the claims - in fact they write like His claims and His existence are a given.

You mentioned Scientology....careful....:)

Oh my bad.
So then the ones who did not take the magical claims of Jesus as fact were all biased.

Your logic is still as twisted and exactly the same as the logic used by Scientology.

Delirium · 23-11-2011 04:18PM

Newsite wrote: »

I don't know what it is about this forum, but do you read posts with opposite points of view, and see only what you want to see?

Kindly point me to where I say or allege that there are no classical historians who dispute the claims of Jesus. I said that highly regarded and notable historians at the time did not dispute the claims - in fact they write like His claims and His existence are a given.

You mentioned Scientology....careful....:)

Got any links to non-biblical history accounts that claim Jesus was the son of God?

Newsite · 23-11-2011 04:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

Oh my bad.
So then the ones who did not take the magical claims of Jesus as fact were all biased.

Your logic is still as twisted and exactly the same as the logic used by Scientology.

Love how you are avoiding the valid points I am making. You are the one mentioning the ones who did not take the magical claims as fact (whoever they are, you don't mention names, curiously). I did not mention anything about anyone being biased.

I am simply saying that prominent 1st and 2nd century historians wrote plainly about the fact that Christ existed and His movement was growing - not about anything refuting His existence and declaring it a fabrication. Which, as opponents to Christianity, would have been the first line in their accounts.

This is a fact that no doubt sits uncomfortably with you, so I'm not surprised you are avoiding it...

Sarky · 23-11-2011 04:21PM

Newsite wrote: »

And yes, Scientology is presumed false because there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that it is true.

The evidence was destroyed by Lord Xenu over the last 2,000 years.

23-11-2011 04:28PM

Newsite wrote: »

Love how you are avoiding the valid points I am making. You are the one mentioning the ones who did not take the magical claims as fact (whoever they are, you don't mention names, curiously). I did not mention anything about anyone being biased.

I am simply saying that prominent 1st and 2nd century historians wrote plainly about the fact that Christ existed and His movement was growing - not about anything refuting His existence and declaring it a fabrication. Which, as opponents to Christianity, would have been the first line in their accounts.

This is a fact that no doubt sits uncomfortably with you, so I'm not surprised you are avoiding it...

well for one, you mentioned in reference to Tactius:

Newsite wrote: »

You are supporting my argument here re 'attacking the philosophy of Christianity', rather that the historical accuracy. All this proves is that he was an opponent of Christianity, like other avid opponents of the time who did not deny the facts of what happened!
.

And again it must be pointed out to you that historical records show that L. Ron Hubbard existed and his movement was growing, and that none of his opponents disputed this. But this does not provide evidence for his claims.

Zombrex · 23-11-2011 04:35PM

Newsite wrote: »

Zombrex. Scientology is a lie because there is no evidence . It is not a lie because it has been demonstrated by evidence to be so. It's like me saying that there is planet called ipeilele which orbits planet kelekel. It's ridiculous because there is no evidence for it. And so it is with Scientology.

And yet thousands of people continue to follow it.

So your argument that people don't follow religions that have been discredited is demonstrably false.

Newsite wrote: »

The evidence does not demonstrate that Christianity is a lie

All your arguments for why Christianity is true, such as saying that it has to be true because people won't follow a discredited religion, and it has to be true because people don't die for a discredited religion, have been demonstrated to be false based on known examples from other religions.

Newsite wrote: »

I hereby propose that anyone who henceforth draws parallels between Scientology and Christianity as a means of proving that Christianity is a 'lie' to be found guilty of the charge of idiocy of the nth degree. Further backing:

Don't get pissed off at us because these other religions obliterate your arguments about human nature and what humans will or won't do.

Newsite wrote: »

The basis for Scientology is based on a book a dude wrote about a character named Xenu who lived 95 million years ago and arrived on a spaceship, to a volcano. Or something very similar I believe. Nobody can use historical analysis to determine the truth of Scientology.

You can use "historial analysis" to determine that L. Ron Hubbard was a real person, that he taught what he taught, and that thousands followed him.

In fact there is far more historial support for L. Ron Hubbard, yet we both agree that Scientology is nonsense and made up.

Newsite wrote: »

The basis for Christianity is on a very significant body or writings which has survived to this very day

Which are the books of the religion. Imagine if you only read the Scientologists account of Scientology.

Newsite wrote: »

, the most recent parts of which are based around a historical character which the most eminent historians and analysts agreed existed

Everyone agrees L. Ron Hubbard existed. Does that mean Scientology is true?

Newsite wrote: »

and, most importantly, whose manner of death in terms of the resurrection was not refuted by those who were around, in the flesh, to easily refute it.

You have no idea if it was or wasn't refuted. The only surviving documentation is the religions own propaganda.

You think the refutations of Hubbard, his drug taking, his abuses, his quotes about making millions by starting a religion, you think all that is to be found in the official documents of Scientology?

Newsite wrote: »

And, who, as a dominant group at the time, could have easily refuted it.

And for all we know they did. It wouldn't have matter, Scientology is refuted and people still believe in it, and these refutations never make it into the official documentation of the religions.

Newsite wrote: »

Except it was not discredited?!

Says who? The Christians themselves? Come on, stop being so utterly naive.

Would you expect to find refutations to Scientology on the official Scientology website? No, of course not. So why do you expect to find refutations in the New Testament?

What we do know is that even if it was refuted it wouldn't have mattered to the true believers.

Newsite wrote: »

Again, Christianity was not discredited. In fact, it was acknowledged as a growing movement for which its followers died.

How does that demonstrate it was not discredited? People die and kill for discredited movements all the time

Newsite wrote: »

These initial followers were people with either first-hand knowledge of Jesus, or who lived during this lifetime. The Romans/Jews could easily have discredited the claims of the divinity of Jesus by producing His body.

And what would have that done? You can read the death toxicology report for L. Ron Hubbard online. By your logic there should be no Scientologists any more because their founder has been totally discredited.

Yet what do we find? Thousand of them.

Newsite wrote: »

So....where are the accounts where they produced His body? Because that's all they'd have to do to put the 'myths' of the resurrection straight to bed, right?

Er no, as we keep saying. The Romans could have dragged Jesus' body through the streets (though why you think they would bother I've no idea, I doubt the Romans knew of the myth that he had risen from the dead until months or even years after the resurrection) and people would still have believed. Just like with every other religion in the world, facts mean very little.

Newsite wrote: »

Your lack of insight and analysis appears breathtaking. 'The official Christian records' - why are you looking to those? You guys don't seem to want to look to the Christian records, not least the Bible, at all. Notice how I haven't referred to Bible records.

Provide one single source for the resurrection other than the Bible. Not a reference saying Jesus existed (L Ron Hubbard existed), but a non-Biblical account of the resurrection and the events around it.

Newsite wrote: »

If what you are saying above could have been the case, any Roman at the time could have said so, and any historian could have recorded this 'fact'. But they didn't. So using pure logic, it's probably just blasphemy on your part, correct?

Recorded it for what reason? Jesus was utterly unspecial to the Romans. In fact there is no record of Jesus at all in Roman records.

If a prisoner in Mount Joy declares to his inmates that his is the Son of God do you expect historians of Ireland to write down that no actually he isn't so 2,000 years later his followers can't say no one objected?

Newsite wrote: »

See above for my proposed motion re the verdict on those who insert references to flying spaceships and a character named Xenu.

As opposed to what, "sons" of God who come back to life after dying?

kylith · 23-11-2011 04:36PM

Newsite wrote: »

Given we don't have pictures of visuals of Jesus, we can only rely on the accounts of those who were alive when He was alive - and the accounts of those writing after His death. You examine these accounts, and the motivations of those writing them.

Can you please provide links to these accounts written by people who knew Jesus? Because as far as I can find there wasn't one account of the man written during his, alleged, lifetime. It seems that they can't even agree on who was Emperor: Tacitus says it was Tiberius, but Suetonius says Claudius. The earliest parts of the New Testament were written around 70CE, 40 years after the man's death, and most of it was put together between 100CE and 300CE. Names weren't even put to the four gospels until about 200CE, so I really don't think that you can call any of it contemporaneus.

Sonics2k · 23-11-2011 04:48PM

Yeah sorry Newsite, but there is no evidence (Historic or Scientific) that proves Jesus was the son of God.

We know from a historic stand point that Jesus (though that was not his actual name) was a real person.

But all "evidence" that he was who many now claim he was, was written by a few direct disciples, who were obviously biased as they were his disciples, and then some further texts written a long time after his death by people who weren't even born when Jesus was alive.

Given the course of time in this context, much like the Religion of Mormons (which we all know to be fictional just from pure logic alone), it's more than possible that Scientology will rise to become a major Religion.

Knasher · 23-11-2011 04:50PM

Newsite wrote: »

Why are you twisting my words - I'm not saying the lack of evidence presumes it is true, I am saying that the evidence proving it untrue is lacking, and that famous first century historians could have discredited it, but didn't.

And yes, Scientology is presumed false because there is not a shred of evidence to indicate that it is true.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm simply pointing out the very different standards you are using to access the veracity of a claim. The approach you are taking to scientology it that there isn't any evidence to indicate it is actually true, it can be presumed false. This is the standard that any rational person will apply to a claim to access whether it should be accepted or not.

The difference is that unless you actually do believe you have evidence for the existence of your god (in which case I'd ask you to present it so we can examine it to see if it stands up under the light of scrutiny), then you are very clearly applying a different standard to christianity than you are to scientology when accessing their respective claims.

Newsite wrote: »

When you are examining historical rather than scientific claims, you can't perform tests to prove that something is true, or not true.

True, but there are process that historians use to establish the veracity of claims. I'd imagine that it would take multiple, non-contrictory accounts to establish a claim and that a single contradictory account to call it into question. Additionally I'd imagine it matters what type of event is being claimed, for example claims that violate the laws of physics are held to a higher standard than those that simply pertain to the existence of certain historical figures. Additionally it certainly calls into question the idea of using historical claims to establish the existence of a being who supposedly currently exists.

Newsite wrote: »

Given we don't have pictures of visuals of Jesus, we can only rely on the accounts of those who were alive when He was alive - and the accounts of those writing after His death. You examine these accounts, and the motivations of those writing them.

Can you give an example of an account which was recorded by somebody who lived during the time of Jesus and recorded the event? I was under the impression that the earliest christian writings where by Paul, who only converted after his death and never actually met the guy.

dmw07 · 23-11-2011 05:09PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

No, thats what you like to think I think. In fact I enjoy it doubly because I also know God created it.

I bet you give 110% in everything you do also tiger

Page 22, yikes! Didn't think the discussion went on for so long, I was on page 4....

robindch · 23-11-2011 05:12PM

Newsite wrote: »

The basis for Scientology is based on a book [...] The basis for Christianity is on [...] writings

Bearing this in mind, you can perhaps understand why people might think that the evidence for both is about the same.

MrPudding · 23-11-2011 05:36PM

Newsite wrote: »

Love how you are avoiding the valid points I am making.

I must have missed your valid points...

Newsite wrote: »

I am simply saying that prominent 1st and 2nd century historians wrote plainly about the fact that Christ existed and His movement was growing -

Do you have any accounts from prominent 1st and 2nd century detailing any of the magic your character was supposed to have performed? I notice you keep referring to them say ing he existing and his movement was growing, nothing of his supernatural feats. Do you have any sources, outside the bible, for any supernatural acts or that he was the son of a god? Bearing in mind the NT was written after the fact likely with the specific intention of support the the religion, so it would be highly unlikely to state anything contrary to the story they were trying to spread.

Newsite wrote: »

not about anything refuting His existence and declaring it a fabrication. Which, as opponents to Christianity, would have been the first line in their accounts.

I, and probably most of the atheists on this board, are fairly happy to admit that a man called Jesus existed. No problem there. Again, you keep referring to this as if it is the problem we have. It isn't. The problem we have is not the existence of a man called Jesus. it is the existence of a man who was supposedly the son of god and could do magic almost as awesome as Penn & Teller. Further, our problem is that the only thing you have to back up the supernatural claims of your story is a book written by people trying to grow the religion that was likely written to back up what they were say and grow the religion.

Newsite wrote: »

This is a fact that no doubt sits uncomfortably with you, so I'm not surprised you are avoiding it...

I have absolutely no discomfort in the notion that a man called jesus existed roughly 2000 years ago. None at all.

MrP

dmw07 · 23-11-2011 05:45PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, you seem to be spectacularly missing the point. For the 3 1/2 years Jesus was preaching he didn't have to work

Being a labour in Biblical times would have involved tough back breaking work from dawn to dust. Jesus avoided all of this. Everything was paid for by others. Jesus was effectively on a 3 1/2 year holiday.

If Jesus had saved up all the money before hand to support his "career break" he wouldn't have had to be supported by wealthy women he had conveniently enough cured of evil spirits.

What did he need cash for in the first place, couldn't he just provide for himself or was he sick of fish, loaves and wine?

robindch · 23-11-2011 05:50PM

Newsite wrote: »

Don't you think it strange that very highly-esteemed first century historians such as Tacitus, writing a mere few decades after Christ's death and with their reputations at stake, might have mentioned that they thought the whole thing was a fake, based on their careful research? Instead, you have the opposite - they freely mention that the events of the Gospels happened, they do not deny that they happened.

Save for your claim that Tacitus is a highly-esteemed historian, almost every word in those two sentences is false.

Tacitus did not write his book "a mere few decades after Christ's death". On the contrary, he wrote it between 80 and 90 years after Jesus is alleged to have been executed.

Tacitus did not fail to mention "that they thought the whole thing was a fake". On the contrary, he referred to the religion as a "superstition".

Tacitus did not "freely mention that the events of the Gospels happened". On the contrary, he corroborated virtually nothing of the NT and referred to the religion as "evil" equated it with things "hideous and shameful", accused its supporters of "hatred of mankind" and of causing "abominations".

As you may not have had the time to read Tacitus -- the full text here -- then, please read what he does say about christianity and Rome:

Tacitus wrote:

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. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

If you sincerely think that this account supports anything more concrete than the fact that a Judean trouble-maker with a name like "Christus" existed, and that this Christus guy was executed in a straightforward manner and without coming back to life again, then I strongly suggest you read it again.

Did you even read it to start with?

Newsite · 23-11-2011 06:33PM

robindch wrote: »

Bearing this in mind, you can perhaps understand why people might think that the evidence for both is about the same.

You would, if you were the kind of person to take things on face value.

kylith · 23-11-2011 06:37PM

Newsite wrote: »

You would, if you were the kind of person to take things on face value.

One is a book. The other is also a book. One is 'writings'. The other is old 'writings'. Why believe one and not the other?

robindch · 23-11-2011 07:58PM

Newsite wrote: »

if you were the kind of person to take things on face value.

Given all we have are accounts provided by books, it's not clear to me how we can take them any other way.

BTW, do you agree with Tacitus' opinion of christianity? Or do you now believe he's wrong?

24-11-2011 01:07AM

Newsite wrote: »

You would, if you were the kind of person to take things on face value.

Why is it different?

L Ron Hubbard is one of the best selling authors, holds to world record for most works translated into the most languages and has been read by millions of people.
And most importantly we can source each and every bit of writing and teaching to him, which is something you can't say about Jesus.

So how come this doesn't make L. Ron's claims true like you think it does with Jesus?

old hippy · 24-11-2011 01:38PM

The book is at best, a collection of fables - told by word of mouth by men to other men, written down by men, discussed by men, debated by men and decided as the truth by men.

We love our sci-fi.

aidan24326 · 24-11-2011 06:52PM

Newsite wrote: »

I said that highly regarded and notable historians at the time did not dispute the claims - in fact they write like His claims and His existence are a given.

But how could they have known this, writing many years later after all of Jesus' contemporaries were likely dead? All they had to go on was mostly information passed on by word of mouth, highly unreliable and in this case almost certainly biased.

They could trust that such a man lived in roughly the way described, but had no way whatsoever of establishing the veracity of anything else that was claimed. And it's clear from Tacitus' writings that he was spectical and suspicious of the whole thing.

Newsite wrote: »

I am simply saying that prominent 1st and 2nd century historians wrote plainly about the fact that Christ existed and His movement was growing - not about anything refuting His existence and declaring it a fabrication. Which, as opponents to Christianity, would have been the first line in their accounts

But so what if he did actually exist? As has been said, that tells us nothing other than some guy fitting Jesus description lived in that place at that time. Was a preacher and a bit of an upstart and got excecuted. Which in itself isn't very interesting until you add the supernatural element. And given that his followers were, as Tacitus put it, now a growing movement, with all that entails, it's not hard to see how they'd have been motivated to exaggerate claims made about him, these exaggerations doubtless getting more and more fanciful with each telling.

MrPudding · 24-11-2011 08:49PM

I think he has realised we are unsavable and has given up.

MrP

Atheism causes creationism

Comments