Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Frank Bullitt · 10-03-2015 11:16PM

Either you accept that Jesus of the Bible existed or you don't.

So can you make up your mind, for the sake of our exchange.

As I said, I don't fully accept it due to lack of proper evidence, conclusive evidence would make me change my mind. So if you provide some then please do, your previous attempt wasn't very conclusive.

I think the fact that a man was killed, and buried and rose from the dead back to life is an extraordinary claim.

And adding other accounts of other extraordinary claims won't add to or take away from that central extraordinary claim.

I have no doubt that the gospel writers could have written numerous other tomes about the life and ministry of Jesus as stated in John 21:24-25.

I fully agree that it is an extraordinary claim, hence the requirement of some evidence (not even extraordinary evidence) to back these up would be great. So this claim is, yet again, a hollow one.

hinault · 10-03-2015 11:28PM

Gintonious wrote: »

As I said, I don't fully accept it due to lack of proper evidence, conclusive evidence would make me change my mind.

You don't accept that Jesus the man existed.
You don't accept that credible historians accept that Jesus the man existed.

That's your prerogative.

No point in continuing our exchange further in this thread.

indioblack · 10-03-2015 11:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

In most aspects of our lives we make choices and believe certain things to be true, not because we have conclusive proof, but because there is evidence that leads us to a certain conclusion.

So, for example, in a criminal investigation you will find different investigators examining the same evidence yet reaching different conclusions. That is often because they disagree as to the significance or weight they attach to each piece of evidence.

So, in most cases, there is still an element of faith required even in the presence of physical evidence. This is often overlooked when antitheists try to construct a 'blind faith' strawman.

Indeed - I would go further - we accept most things on trust in our everyday lives. If we had to verify everything we would never get out of bed in the morning.
But this is the reverse. If evidence is found there is no need of belief - because we would have knowledge - we would know.
I am not being critical in claiming this. The strength of faith lies in it's acceptance that something may not be proved but the believer chooses to act as if it was true.

Frank Bullitt · 10-03-2015 11:37PM

hinault wrote: »

Ah, wiki gets cited again!

I'll accept the point about core principles.

Do you not accept that documentation from the 1st century conforms to what is listed as a core historical principle?

Why do you think that credible historians accept that Jesus the man in the Bible existed? Historians accept that Jesus the man existed using presumably core principle methodology.

The link from wiki referenced 2 historians Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén, and wikipedia is heavily moderated now as well, so for the sake of online discussion, I see no issue with referencing it.

Accepting the documentation that you have referenced are not eyewitnesses accounts, they are at best second hand. This isn't the best reference again for proof of it.

There are 3 non christian mentions of Jesus in history, that is all. The rest of is of biblical sources. Hitchens put it well that the best reference for Jesus was the biblical inconsistencies, indicating that someone of a lesser importance was born, i.e not the son of god.

Frank Bullitt · 10-03-2015 11:39PM

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept that Jesus the man existed.
You don't accept that credible historians accept that Jesus the man existed.

That's your prerogative.

No point in continuing our exchange further in this thread.

So we don't get to talk about the son of god claims? The supernatural claims? Rising from the dead? Curing the sick etc?

hinault · 11-03-2015 12:02AM

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed - I would go further - we accept most things on trust in our everyday lives. If we had to verify everything we would never get out of bed in the morning.
But this is the reverse. If evidence is found there is no need of belief - because we would have knowledge - we would know.
I am not being critical in claiming this. The strength of faith lies in it's acceptance that something may not be proved but the believer chooses to act as if it was true.

that is a good post.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 12:08AM

hinault wrote: »

Ah, wiki gets cited again!

Can you explain why this is such a big problem for you?

marienbad · 11-03-2015 12:13AM

orubiru wrote: »

Can you explain why this is such a big problem for you?

Especially when you believe in the Bible

indioblack · 11-03-2015 12:13AM

hinault wrote: »

that is a good post.

Thanks. There was a slight sting in the tail. If a person chooses to act upon something that may not be verifiable it is reasonable to enquire why they wish to do so.

orubiru · 11-03-2015 12:18AM

marienbad wrote: »

Especially when you believe in the Bible

Yeah, this was gonna be my point.

Citing Wikipedia = dismissed.

Citing thousand year old religious texts = totally acceptable.

Frank Bullitt · 11-03-2015 01:30AM

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah, this was gonna be my point.

Citing Wikipedia = dismissed.

Citing thousand year old religious texts = totally acceptable.

Don't expect that to change anytime soon.

PopePalpatine · 11-03-2015 08:42AM

orubiru wrote: »

Can you explain why this is such a big problem for you?

It's not Conservapedia. :pac:

orubiru · 11-03-2015 09:32AM

hinault wrote: »

You don't accept that Jesus the man existed.
You don't accept that credible historians accept that Jesus the man existed.

That's your prerogative.

No point in continuing our exchange further in this thread.

I think that we can definitely accept that Jesus the man existed.
It is generally also agreed that Jesus was baptized and also crucified.

I don't think we can accept AT ALL that Jesus was the Son of God. Even IF the miracles were true, there is too much of a leap from "this guy says he is the Son of God and can do some pretty unnatural things" to "he must be the Son of God".

Unless of course, "Son of God" is not supposed to be taken literally.

The miracles themselves? I don't see how anyone could see these as anything other than myths. Christianity is no different to any other cultural group, really.

We understand the nature of human culture and society. We understand that each culture, or group, has its own mythology. We can see, quite clearly, the parallels between the stories of Jesus and the stories of other mythological characters that pre-date Jesus. There is no basis at all for believing that the miracles or the resurrection are historical facts.

You have Irish mythology, most of which was destroyed or altered by Christianity. Why would you assume that the Irish myths are not historical facts but, on the other hand, you understand the Christian mythology as being factual?

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 10:16AM

silverharp wrote: »

its worth noting as well that there is little in the way of evidence that the apostles either died for their faith or if they did were in a position to recant. Its all church lore not recorded history made at the time by local authorities or the like

That is true as well. It is the problem when the only history of these events comes from the church itself, after 2000 years of purging heretical alternatives.

Again imagine if the only things we knew about Scientology came from www.scientology.org and some people thought that was a reasonable history of the cult?

*shudder*

TheLurker · 11-03-2015 10:18AM

indioblack wrote: »

Indeed - I would go further - we accept most things on trust in our everyday lives. If we had to verify everything we would never get out of bed in the morning.
But this is the reverse. If evidence is found there is no need of belief - because we would have knowledge - we would know.
I am not being critical in claiming this. The strength of faith lies in it's acceptance that something may not be proved but the believer chooses to act as if it was true.

How is that a strength?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 10:21AM

TheLurker wrote: »

How is that a strength?

Exactly. I would go so far as to say that that description of faith is just a synonym for gullibility.

silverharp · 11-03-2015 10:35AM

TheLurker wrote: »

That is true as well. It is the problem when the only history of these events comes from the church itself, after 2000 years of purging heretical alternatives.

Again imagine if the only things we knew about Scientology came from www.scientology.org and some people thought that was a reasonable history of the cult?

*shudder*

What is also amusing is that the ott lore was discarded by the church , but it shows that the faithull were writing down any amount of fanciful accounts due to the distance in time. In the acts of Philip for instance he cursed his enemies causing 7000 people to be swallowed up in an abyss, Jesus then rebukes him and tortures him for 40 days before he gets into heaven.
It shows that the faithfully were prone to making up stuff or filling in gaps where little was actually known

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 10:41AM

Jesus then rebukes him and tortures him for 40 days before he gets into heaven.

But but but...I thought Jesus was nice and lovely and merciful and didn't harm anyone?

EDIT: Here's the relevant passage

It opened and the whole place was swallowed, about 7,000 men, save where the apostles were. And their voices came up, crying for mercy and saying: Lo, the cross enlighteneth us. And a voice was heard: I will have mercy on you in my cross of light. 134 But Stachys and his house, and Nicanora and 50 others, and 100 virgins remained safe. 135 Jesus appeared and rebuked Philip. 136 But he defended himself. 137 And the Lord said: Since you have been unforgiving and wrathful, you shall indeed die in glory and be taken by angels to paradise, but shall remain outside it forty days, in fear of the flaming sword, and then I will send Michael and he shall let you in.

Upon reading...it doesn't seem so bad. You use divine magic to kill 7,000 men and as a punishment, you're told...your death will be glorious and you will be taken by angels to paradise, where you'll have to wait for 40 days so that you will really think hard about what you did, mister!
Okay cool. Anybody have a nuke handy, or some other high powered explosive? After all, it says here that if I kill a whole bunch of people, then I'll get into heaven. Hmm...wonder if the 72 virgins we hear from Islam applies here as well.

MaxWig · 11-03-2015 10:49AM

The strength of faith lies in it's acceptance that something may not be proved but the believer chooses to act as if it was true.

Isn't the strenght of faith it's ability to provide the faithful with something, whatever that may be, irrespective of questions of truth?

Harika · 11-03-2015 10:55AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

. Hmm...wonder if the 72 virgins we hear from Islam applies here as well.

If you think closely, 72 virgins for eternity, is not that much after all.

lazygal · 11-03-2015 10:55AM

Why were the virgins safe?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 10:56AM

lazygal wrote: »

Why were the virgins safe?

It's simple when you think about it. ::wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?

silverharp · 11-03-2015 10:59AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

But but but...I thought Jesus was nice and lovely and merciful and didn't harm anyone?

Where did you get that from :- ) , if he was who he says he was then he was pretty deceitful and very uncaring. He must have told or otherwise implied that he would come back again in their lifetime, as a motivational trick? If he knew himself he wasn't going to comeback for thousands of years he could have at least let them know it was a long term project because people needed saving in Asia Australia and the Americas?

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 11:05AM

silverharp wrote: »

Where did you get that from :- ) , if he was who he says he was then he was pretty deceitful and very uncaring. He must have told or otherwise implied that he would come back again in their lifetime, as a motivational trick? If he knew himself he wasn't going to comeback for thousands of years he could have at least let them know it was a long term project because people needed saving in Asia Australia and the Americas?

I'm too lazy at the moment to check, but was there anything purportedly said by Jesus along the lines of "I'll come back, but only when the world as a whole believes in me?"

galljga1 · 11-03-2015 11:14AM

Harika wrote: »

If you think closely, 72 virgins for eternity, is not that much after all.

Back to the virgins again. Could never understand how they could be considered a prize. By the law of averages, they are hounds, you have them for eternity, there are 72 of them. Not Good.

silverharp · 11-03-2015 11:21AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm too lazy at the moment to check, but was there anything purportedly said by Jesus along the lines of "I'll come back, but only when the world as a whole believes in me?"

Yes and no (what's new). In Matthew one quote says all nations and an earlier Matthew quote says all cities in Israel.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 11:24AM

silverharp wrote: »

Yes and no (what's new). In Matthew one quote says all nations and an earlier Matthew quote says all cities in Israel.

Ahh...so now we have a divine mandate to force those blasphemous heathen Jews into believing Jesus is the Son of God! Their unbelief is directly preventing the Second Coming of our Messiah! To war my brethren!:D

Also, those two can be reconciled. It's simple. It's if you assume that nations only applies to Israel, that every other area on the planet is just wild, savage and uncivilised and obviously not a unified nation.

silverharp · 11-03-2015 11:58AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Ahh...so now we have a divine mandate to force those blasphemous heathen Jews into believing Jesus is the Son of God! Their unbelief is directly preventing the Second Coming of our Messiah! To war my brethren!:D

Also, those two can be reconciled. It's simple. It's if you assume that nations only applies to Israel, that every other area on the planet is just wild, savage and uncivilised and obviously not a unified nation.

They lived with the romans so they knew there were other empires out there but you don't get a picture that Jesus was concerned about the whole world. He could have done a Noah on them and given them designs to build a fleet of ocean going ships to reach Australia and the rest but no.
In hindsight he should have picked the Chinese , they were better placed technology wise at the time ;-) and how impressive would it have been for a bunch of kung fu Jews to have arrived back in Israel later on. I'm sure that would have impressed the locals. ;-)

hinault · 11-03-2015 12:07PM

orubiru wrote: »

I think that we can definitely accept that Jesus the man existed.
It is generally also agreed that Jesus was baptized and also crucified.

I don't think we can accept AT ALL that Jesus was the Son of God. Even IF the miracles were true, there is too much of a leap from "this guy says he is the Son of God and can do some pretty unnatural things" to "he must be the Son of God".

Unless of course, "Son of God" is not supposed to be taken literally.

The miracles themselves? I don't see how anyone could see these as anything other than myths. Christianity is no different to any other cultural group, really.

Your accepting that Jesus Christ physically existed is a positive.

But it appears that you don't accept that Jesus Christ was killed, died and was buried and after 3 days he rose from the dead.

RikuoAmero · 11-03-2015 12:10PM

But it appears that you don't accept that Jesus Christ was killed, died and was buried and after 3 days he rose from the dead.

Nooo....really? What gave that away?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments