Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

hinault · 10-03-2015 12:37AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes. At least with the recent research coming out of NASA, that is something we can examine.
With God...nothing. At least, anything that I have examined has so far proved to be in favour of the god claim.
Now I myself shall be tottling off to bed, unlike what Cen taurus claimed (hmm...could've sworn there's something in christianity about lying)

Historians accept that Jesus Christ existed.
That alone is more evidence than you can muster for your belief in alien life.

Yet you'll accept the lower evidence threshold to believe something while dismissing the higher evidence threshold to vindicate your disbelief. Strange.

Cen taurus · 10-03-2015 12:38AM

orubiru wrote: »

Do you think maybe we could just cut through all this nonsense now?

Seriously, what is your point?

What point are you trying to make?

Just looking for the posters replying to me to back up the claims they make, and without fallacy and false premises. Quite simple really.

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 12:38AM

How do you base your belief on a book you cannot read ?

That's what I've asked them and they've never once given me a sane answer! What, have you never encountered anyone like that? Someone who proudly proclaims their membership of the religion, who proudly proclaims to believe in the teachings of Jesus, the church and the bible...but who has never examined any of them?

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 12:39AM

hinault wrote: »

Historians accept that Jesus Christ existed.
That alone is more evidence than you can muster for your belief in alien life.

Yet you'll accept the lower evidence threshold to believe something while dismissing the higher evidence threshold to vindicate your disbelief. Strange.

Historians accept that Jesus Christ, a specific man from a specific region on Earth, who did some very specific actions, existed.
Not at all comparable with my claim of there being life out there somewhere.

orubiru · 10-03-2015 12:40AM

hinault wrote: »

Historians accept that Jesus Christ existed.
That alone is more evidence than you can muster for your belief in alien life.

Yet you'll accept the lower evidence threshold to believe something while dismissing the higher evidence threshold to vindicate your disbelief. Strange.

Can you provide a link for that?

I'm sure that they don't accept things like the resurrection story.

Do you?

orubiru · 10-03-2015 12:42AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Just looking for the posters replying to me to back up the claims they make, and without fallacy and false premises. Quite simple really.

OK. Shortcut. Lets say no claims are ever backed up. No arguments are ever presented.

Lets say it's fallacy and false premises all the way down.

What is your point?

Cen taurus · 10-03-2015 12:42AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

That's what I've asked them and they've never once given me a sane answer! What, have you never encountered anyone like that? Someone who proudly proclaims their membership of the religion, who proudly proclaims to believe in the teachings of Jesus, the church and the bible...but who has never examined any of them?

Speaking of examing claims . .

When are you going to provide proof for your claim . . . or are you just going dodge it ?

Cen taurus · 10-03-2015 12:43AM

orubiru wrote: »

OK. Shortcut. Lets say no claims are ever backed up. No arguments are ever presented.

Lets say it's fallacy and false premises all the way down.

What is your point?

That the people replying to me don't seem to be able to back up a single claim they make about theism and christianity.

hinault · 10-03-2015 12:44AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Historians accept that Jesus Christ, a specific man from a specific region on Earth, who did some very specific actions, existed.
Not at all comparable with my claim of there being life out there somewhere.

Well it is comparable on the basis that evidence for my claim is physical evidence.

Unlike your claim.

Cen taurus · 10-03-2015 12:46AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Historians accept that Jesus Christ, a specific man from a specific region on Earth, who did some very specific actions, existed.
Not at all comparable with my claim of there being life out there somewhere.

Indeed, seeing as there is no evidence yet for alien life at all.

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 12:46AM

hinault wrote: »

Well it is comparable on the basis that evidence for my claim is physical evidence.

Unlike your claim.

Okay...then hit me. What is this physical evidence? Does it stand up to scrutiny?

marienbad · 10-03-2015 12:49AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

When you answer the questions that have been asked of you, look them up if you can't remember, and when you've proved your accusation below.

You'll be able to prove where I was then. Off you go.

You were disingenuous and you were called on it , and you throw in a little bit of ad hominem for good measure

Any arguments to advance yet ? We await with bated breath . Off you go

hinault · 10-03-2015 12:49AM

orubiru wrote: »

Can you provide a link for that?

I'm sure that they don't accept things like the resurrection story.

Do you?

Given the amount of contemporaneous documentation that there is about Jesus from that time, that we possess now, most credible historians today accept that Jesus physically existed when he existed.

In fact there is far more contemporaneous documentation to show that Jesus existed than there is documentation to show that Socrates existed, or Plato existed, or other figures who history says existed.

orubiru · 10-03-2015 12:52AM

Cen taurus wrote: »

That the people replying to me don't seem to be able to back up a single claim they make about theism and christianity.

So basically, nobody can prove anything?

Or nobody can prove anything about theism and Christianity?

It seems like that's your point.

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 12:54AM

hinault wrote: »

Given the amount of contemporaneous documentation that there is about Jesus from that time, that we possess now, most credible historians today accept that Jesus physically existed when he existed.

In fact there is far more contemporaneous documentation to show that Jesus existed than there is documentation to show that Socrates existed, or Plato existed, or other figures who history says existed.

Another false equivocation fallacy. You're not recognising the difference in the types of claims made.
Claims are made about Jesus doing supernatural actions, about him being God in flesh, that humans ought to follow his teachings (or else!).
The same is not said for Socrates or Plato. If in fact they never existed...no biggie. Nothing changes in my life. Any philosophical arguments that were once attributed to them don't change - textbooks will be updated to say "These arguments were once thought to have originated from these men, but this has been disproven". Can the same be said for Jesus? What happens to the claim "Jesus is God in flesh" if it's ever proven concluslively that Jesus never existed?

orubiru · 10-03-2015 12:54AM

hinault wrote: »

Given the amount of contemporaneous documentation that there is about Jesus from that time, that we possess now, most credible historians today accept that Jesus physically existed when he existed.

In fact there is far more contemporaneous documentation to show that Jesus existed than there is documentation to show that Socrates existed, or Plato existed, or other figures who history says existed.

Yes, but I wasn't asking that. I was asking for links.

I am not denying that Jesus existed.

I am asking if those same historians who accept that Jesus existed accept that things like the miracles and the crucifixion and resurrection happened?

I am also asking if you believe that things like the miracles and the crucifixion and resurrection happened?

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:00AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay...then hit me. What is this physical evidence? Does it stand up to scrutiny?

Well, credible historians today are of the opinion that the volume of documentation from the 1st century makes the more compelling case for Jesus existence than the sheer dearth of documentation for people said to lived since Jesus existed.

For example, texts from that time which record Jesus life have been scientifically tested to show that they were written in the first century. And there are literally thousands of texts from the 1st century, from diverse geographical regions which record that Jesus lived.

How would texts from the same time period, written from different geographical regions, using very limited commodities like ink and papyrus (which were expensive commodities), all manage to contemporaneously record the existence of a person from a relatively poor backwater in a region
of little or no importance within the Roman Empire, manage within years of his death, all record his life?

In a time when mass communication was verbal, when people barely left their hamlet and village, you have a case of thousands of texts recording what Jesus did and his life, in locations which are pretty diverse.

Credible historians use all these conclusions to assert that Jesus did physically exist.

marienbad · 10-03-2015 01:01AM

hinault wrote: »

Given the amount of contemporaneous documentation that there is about Jesus from that time, that we possess now, most credible historians today accept that Jesus physically existed when he existed.

In fact there is far more contemporaneous documentation to show that Jesus existed than there is documentation to show that Socrates existed, or Plato existed, or other figures who history says existed.

There are a few mentions that a man called Jesus existed , nothing more really. And then you have

''Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death''

So nothing surprising about a few mentions from Josephus and one from Tacitus .

On the other hand you have the miracle of the loaves and fishes and we have not one eye witness account or any mention in history of such a spectacular event- it would have been the wonder of the age .

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 01:08AM

hinault wrote: »

Well, credible historians today are of the opinion that the volume of documentation from the 1st century makes the more compelling case for Jesus existence than the sheer dearth of documentation for people said to lived since Jesus existed.

For example, texts from that time which record Jesus life have been scientifically tested to show that they were written in the first century. And there are literally thousands of texts from the 1st century, from diverse geographical regions which record that Jesus lived.

How would texts from the same time period, written from different geographical regions, using very limited commodities like ink and papyrus (which were expensive commodities), all manage to contemporaneously record the existence of a person from a relatively poor backwater in a region
of little or no importance within the Roman Empire, manage within years of his death, all record his life?

In a time when mass communication was verbal, when people barely left their hamlet and village, you have a case of thousands of texts recording what Jesus did and his life, in locations which are pretty diverse.

Credible historians use all these conclusions to assert that Jesus did physically exist.

Anything in support of the supernatural claims, is what I meant. I have no problem with the Jesus the man existing. It's Jesus the God man that I have problems with.

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:18AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Another false equivocation fallacy. You're not recognising the difference in the types of claims made.

No.

I'm presenting the physical evidence that records that Jesus lived. Credible historians accept that the physical texts indicate that a physical man named Jesus lived when he lived.

That alone carries far far more evidential weight than "oh, there must be aliens out there, somewhere, because given the size of the universe there simply has to be something out there somewhere, but I don't know where.... mathematics, any port in a storm............"

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:19AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Anything in support of the supernatural claims, is what I meant. I have no problem with the Jesus the man existing. It's Jesus the God man that I have problems with.

Let's park first the claims about the divinity of Jesus Christ for a moment.

Do you accept that the evidence showing that Jesus Christ lived, when he lived and where he lived, is fact?

marienbad · 10-03-2015 01:24AM

hinault wrote: »

Let's park first the claims about the divinity of Jesus Christ for a moment.

Do you accept that the evidence showing that Jesus Christ lived, when he lived and where he lived, is fact?

at least 71 men named Jesus lived at that time according to the archaeological evidence.

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:27AM

marienbad wrote: »

at least 71 men named Jesus lived at that time according to the archaeological evidence.

Were all 71 men born in Bethlehem?
Did they all live in Nazareth?
Did they all have a cousin called John the Baptist?

Were they all Jewish? Did they all attend a synagogue in Jerusalem?
Were they all questioned by Pontius Pilate? Were they all crucified?

RikuoAmero · 10-03-2015 01:29AM

hinault wrote: »

Let's park first the claims about the divinity of Jesus Christ for a moment.

Do you accept that the evidence showing that Jesus Christ lived, when he lived and where he lived, is fact?

I'm going to bed now (for realsies this time), but I'll leave this here. We'll continue this tomorrow.
Jesus Christ the man? In a general sense, yes. There were many such preachers in that time period. It's quite likely, given what we know of the world at that time, that preachers tended to annoy those in power, and that those in power tended to react with violence.
There's nothing unusual in the Jesus Christ the Man claim. It's quite ordinary for it's time.

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:31AM

marienbad wrote: »

There are a few mentions that a man called Jesus existed , nothing more really. And then you have

''Christ's given name, commonly Romanized as Yeshua, was quite common in first-century Galilee. (Jesus comes from the transliteration of Yeshua into Greek and then English.) Archaeologists have unearthed the tombs of 71 Yeshuas from the period of Jesus' death''

So nothing surprising about a few mentions from Josephus and one from Tacitus .

On the other hand you have the miracle of the loaves and fishes and we have not one eye witness account or any mention in history of such a spectacular event- it would have been the wonder of the age .

Josephus and Tacitus are only two texts among the thousands of texts that have been dated from the 1st century or thereabout recording Jesus life and teaching.

How do you account for the texts from diverse regional locations chose to record what Jesus did?
How do you account for the number of texts from diverse regional locations chose to record what Jesus did?

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:33AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm going to bed now (for realsies this time), but I'll leave this here. We'll continue this tomorrow.
Jesus Christ the man? In a general sense, yes. There were many such preachers in that time period. It's quite likely, given what we know of the world at that time, that preachers tended to annoy those in power, and that those in power tended to react with violence.
There's nothing unusual in the Jesus Christ the Man claim. It's quite ordinary for it's time.

OK, so I'll take it that you accept that Jesus Christ the person existed.
That is a start.

We'll continue our exchange later:)

Frank Bullitt · 10-03-2015 01:49AM

hinault wrote: »

OK, so I'll take it that you accept that Jesus Christ the person existed.
That is a start.

We'll continue our exchange later:)

Even if there was a preacher matching the description of Jesus, it still doesn't prove he was the son of god.

hinault · 10-03-2015 01:58AM

Gintonious wrote: »

Even if there was a preacher matching the description of Jesus, it still doesn't prove he was the son of god.

Let's park the claims about divinity for a moment.

Do you accept that a man called Jesus Christ lived where he lived and lived when he did?

Frank Bullitt · 10-03-2015 02:30AM

hinault wrote: »

Let's park the claims about divinity for a moment.

Do you accept that a man called Jesus Christ lived where he lived and lived when he did?

Pardon? Park the divinity...I believe the divinity part of this discussion is really quite important. Parking it doesn't do much for your claims.

And as for do I accept that a man called Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the son of god existed? The only historical evidence for Jesus is in the bible, a book with very many other questionable claims and stories in it. Which also was written years after the apparent events, and also not in the same part of the world.

So no, I do not accept it as a given that there was a Jesus, there may well be a possibility, but it is far from factual evidence.

hinault · 10-03-2015 03:01AM

Gintonious wrote: »

And as for do I accept that a man called Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the son of god existed? The only historical evidence for Jesus is in the bible, a book with very many other questionable claims and stories in it. Which also was written years after the apparent events, and also not in the same part of the world.

So no, I do not accept it as a given that there was a Jesus, there may well be a possibility, but it is far from factual evidence.

Incorrect.

I asked you to park the claim about divinity and to asked do you accept that Jesus Christ physically existed? Do you?

There are thousands of texts dated from the 1st century which form no part of the Bible, which attest to the existence of Jesus Christ.

The Babylonian Talmud for example.
You dispute the evidence of Tacitus, Josephus? Tallus? None of these men consider Jesus to be divine but each attested to Jesus existence.

You disagree with their assertion?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments