Do you believe jesus was a real person who existed historically ?
How old is our planet?
Does god answer your prayers?
Why evil exists ?
If God was schizophrenic, would he just hear an echo in his head?
Do you understand what means a fact ?
Do you think for yourself ?
You may be an atheist but you don't know that yet, do you agree with this ?
1- It was a fictional character created by people that lived after the supposed figure's existence occurred. No one that lived during Jesus's time, being it follower, philosofer, scribe, historian, etc wrote anything about Jesus during his time.
Everything wrote after Jesus's supposed existence is based only in hearsay information. Which is the same kind of information that can give you the bigfoot, the loch ness monster or the bogey man.
2- The age of the earth is more or less 4.54 billion years. If you wish to know why, read my previous posts on this topic.
3- That is a question for someone that believes in a god.
But if you agree that there are many different religions in the world with billions of followers spread worldwide and if all of those followers have prayers to be attended to, many of them that will eventually affect other people around and sometimes in negative ways, then you can easily conclude that your prayers will never be attended because you as an individual won't have the necessary broadening scope to produce a worthwhile prayer that will attend to the greater good of the majority of your god's follower.
Example:
Imagine one of your relatives has had a car crash. You will pray that he lives...
Imagine that a room next door, there's a patient that needs a heart. If your relative dies, he can have his heart. If he lives, he'll die without a heart.
By your terms, only god will know what will be the best outcome, so the fact that you pray will have no interference towards the final decision, whose reasons you ignore.
4- Evil is, first of all, a human concept. It is a product of human intelligence, where one can take decisions that benefit the global community or not.
5- Based on what religious believers claim to be their god and based on the way they describe their actions, then yes. I would classify God as a schizophrenic. But then again, i'm not a psychiatrist.
6- A fact is something that is indisputable and that had strong solid and verifiable proof to back it up.
7- Everyday.
8- Every intelligent human being is an atheist. Some at a smaller percentage, some at a bigger. It's not related directly to intelligence though, it's related to the information one's exposed to and to the reasoning made on top of that information.
The more you educate yourself and the more conclusions you draw from that information, the more you'll ask questions towards your religious beliefs.
1- It was a fictional character created by people that lived after the supposed figure's existence occurred. No one that lived during Jesus's time, being it follower, philosofer, scribe, historian, etc wrote anything about Jesus during his time.
Everything wrote after Jesus's supposed existence is based only in hearsay information. Which is the same kind of information that can give you the bigfoot, the loch ness monster or the bogey man.
That's an interesting view to hold. Do you disregard the findings and opinions of scholars and historians on other historical matters in the same way you discard them when it comes to Jesus?
Depends what do you mean by jesus.
A son of god born from a virgin(or god himself if one accepts the concept god being god,son and the holy ghost), made miracles and was risen from death. Absolutely I don't believe that there was such person.
Jesus as a somekind of teacher and religious man whos followers then created a myth about him, could be. there were tons of messiah figures at thoses times.
Quote:
That's an interesting view to hold. Do you disregard the findings and opinions of scholars and historians on other historical matters in the same way you discard them when it comes to Jesus?
I do if we take the text as whole (including miracles and supernatural things).
I discard such texts as unreliable. Ofcourse the persons who appear on those text can be based on real figures, but how they are described on those texts is not historically accurate.
I am not sure what that was even supposed to mean. What "text as whole". What "unreliable text". Historical research about Jesus tells us precisely nothing about miracles or messianic superpowers. What it does, however, is that it helps us find the answer to the original question by tidus. Why would you even bring religious issues like virgin birth up. You must have got carried away by your personal internet crusade again.
I am not sure what that was even supposed to mean. What "text as whole". What "unreliable text". Historical research about Jesus tells us precisely nothing about miracles or messianic superpowers. What it does, however, is that it helps us find the answer to the original question by tidus. Why would you even bring religious issues like virgin birth up. You must have got carried away by your personal internet crusade again.
There is no other historical research available about jesus than religious texts (written by unknown people who never met jesus themself, aka second hand information. One could argue about Paul, but he didn't meet jesus as alive but in a vision). We have no other sources to research.
Those texts include descriptions of miracles etc.
And if we take those texts as whole (we include those miracles,supernatural things), I don't accept jesus being a true figure.
And I would treat every other similar text the same way, it being unreliable as describing a historical event/person.
If we however examine those texts as a story about a rabbi/teacher (who was a normal human being) and extract those miracles etc. as added stuff by the writers in purpose of making a more appealing legend promoting their belief, then could accept jesus as historical figure who migh have actually lived.
Quote:
You must have got carried away by your personal internet crusade again.
You are not sure what I mean, but yet you are able to draw such conclusion from something you don't understand. Sounds like there is somebody else on crusade than me.
Now it is you that want to compare atheism to religions! I don't. I'm taking what you call "few isolated examples" into consideration when talking about atheism. That' all..
Not comparing, I used religion as an example for a movement which can be called historically meaninfull as defining something.
I was referring to atheists being as fanatical over their belief in nothing, the way religious people are over their being a God.
I was referring to atheists being as fanatical over their belief in nothing
Belief in nothing ?
Atheism is a non belief in god(s), not a belief in nothing.
I also challenge your claim about being fanatical. We don't have for example a hell to blackmail/frighten people, we don't blow up facilities which are agains our values (like christians blow up abortion clinicks and even kill doctors who perform aborts), not mentionin the muslim terrorists who do terrorist attacks in the name of their religion.
Comparing atheists to those real fantatics is a bit unfair.
In my opinion one must challenge (in debates, not with violence or threats like religious people do)something which claims to be the ultimate truth,the source of morals etc. Especially when there is nothing to support that claim, if you call that being fanatic, then i quess our standards are quite different.
Funny how you managed to make the 2 cardial mistakes in 2 posts, calling atheism a religion and then calling it a belief in nothing, you sound like a bad apologist (comparing to hOG, who is a bit below mediocore).
Don't you two have you're own forum you can go to? Seriously Same shit over and over again. Agree to disagree or something it got boring a long time ago..
Don't read it if you are not interested.
Are you telling me that these forums must follow your taste and your rules, otherwise people should go elsewhere discussing ?
No, not at all, people should be free to discuss what they like (within the rules). However you and Hog seem to run over the exact some conversation time and time again. Thats whats boring, neither of you bring anything more to the discussion anytime it happens. I read most on these forums, i don't bother replying to religion stuff generally, purely cause i'm on the side that simply doesn't care. However seeing the same arguments time and time again explained slightly diff, is just /facepalm
It seems to generally only be you two aswell and as both mod/admin you could probably fight/discuss it out somehwere else
This is serious chat though and i dont have more to add to this topic other than what i said earlier so i will leave.
There is no other historical research available about jesus than religious texts (written by unknown people who never met jesus themself, aka second hand information. One could argue about Paul, but he didn't meet jesus as alive but in a vision). We have no other sources to research.
Those texts include descriptions of miracles etc.
But that's wrong.
There is Tacitus, Suetonius, Flavius Josephus, Lucian, Mara Serapion, then there is the Talmud. Sources not dependent on each other. Non-religious texts or works not Christian in nature. Given the context this particular piece of history is afforded plenty of luxury in terms of support for its historicity. More than many an easily accepted historical fact, yet those seldom seem to get this treatment, do they.
There is Tacitus, Suetonius, Flavius Josephus, Lucian, Mara Serapion, then there is the Talmud.
For example josephus (those few lines jesus is mentioned) is a forgery regoniced even by christian historians.
Talmud has not a one word of jesus, it talks about messiah.
Mara didn't mention the words jesus or christ.
There are no other sources than bible which have stories from people who actually lived on his time, period. And even those stories are supposedly eyewitness stories they are written not by them.
How quick you are to hold views not conforming to the general academic opinion when it suits you. Josephus is rightly questioned, but mostly as being amended by later scribes, not an outright fabrication somehow disqualifying him from providing insight into the historicity of Jesus. See Dunn, Schreckenberg, Evans, any number of scholars really. The Talmud while referring to Yeshu and Mara both corroborate other accounts. Unbelievable though it might seem, we do not have a detailed, first hand account of all of our history. Congratulations, you have discovered how historical research works.
How quick you are to hold views not conforming to the general academic opinion when it suits you
You are not the first one to represent these sources. And it's not a general academic opinions.
Especially if we talk about jesus as divine figure (son of god, or god if you believe in trinity, somebody capable of doing miracles etc.).
Quote:
The Talmud while referring to Yeshu and Mara both corroborate other accounts.
Why is it then that the jews who's text the talmud is, do not accept that the messiah mentioned in their texts is not jesus ?
Quote:
him from providing insight into the historicity of Jesus
No, there is one brief mention of jesus mentioning him as being the messiah for jews.
And knowing jospehus background (being a jew who comes from a family being academically religious) it's highly questionable that he would mention jesus as a messiah which is a claim jews don't accept.
It's like somebody from the future would find my text where I mention jesus as the son of god.
Quote:
Unbelievable though it might seem, we do not have a detailed, first hand account of all of our history.
Exactly and therefor when a text contains also elements which have supernatural nature should be and are questioned, and rightly so. There is no way to verify those supernatural events + there has been 0 supernatural events in the history of human kind which has been verified being a supernatural event.
And thats why I pointed out that if we read the texts as whole (including the supernatural elements), I don't accept jesus as historical figure, however if we talk only about jesus (and leave the supernatural stuff out as added stuff to promote the religion) as ordinary person, then I could accept him as historical figure. In those times there were plenty of people who were repsented or represented them as messiah, jews waited for messiah to free them from rome. Could be that jesus was one of those.
Josephus being one of the sources for Jesus' historicity is general academic consensus, just as acknowledging the later embellishments to the text is, just the argument being supported by numerous indirect sources is, just as acknowledging the historical existence of Jesus is. And just like the results of study of countless other parts of history are. Yet those don't seem to make people question them.
You keep bringing the supernatural elements into this. I don't know why. They are irrelevant to the point at hand. I am genuinely surprised at your reaction, you, a big proponent of a reasonable approach to things. You keep pushing these supernatural elements into a historical discussion for some reason.
Maybe you got confused because at first you claimed that there was no magical Jesus,. And fair enough, that's very reasonable. But then you acknowledged there might have been a historical Jesus. But that there are no sources and no research supporting that. Wait, there are and there is. But it's wrong! Only it isn't and it's just as good as it gets for the rest of history. But the supernatural elements, man! Yeah! Though I might be wrong.
edit: Also I can see how much you seem to enjoy sparring with words and being right on these forums, but I am no hOG and have no energy for it, so this is it from me. Particularly since I feel like I have said all there is to say as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned, so enjoy quoting and dissecting my posts, but know that the historical research is readily available to everyone and might be a better read than anything me or you or anyone might post here.
The Talmud while referring to Yeshu and Mara both corroborate other accounts.
Why is it then that the jews who's text the talmud is, do not accept that the messiah mentioned in their texts is not jesus ?
They wanted the vineyard for themselves and therefore killed the owners son?
Don't you think it's quite obvious that not everybody will accept someone as the messiah just as some people these days can't accept that the earth is older than 6000 years and isn't the centre of the universe?
Josephus being one of the sources for Jesus' historicity is general academic consensus
Nope, not for academic, but for apogolists.
Quote:
But then you acknowledged there might have been a historical Jesus. But that there are no sources and no research supporting that.
Sources reliable enough (if they talk about jesus), but I can say that there could have been.
Also naturally the supernatural things weaken the credibility for the whole story of jesus.
Quote:
Also I can see how much you seem to enjoy sparring with words and being right on these forums
I enjoy having conversations, and I enjoy defending my stance. I don't particulary enjoy being right though, I do howerver enjoy pointing out flaws in peoples arguments.
I also enjoy if somebody has a good argument which points out that I am wrong. That means that I have learned something new, the very point of conversations of these nature.
Quote:
Don't you think it's quite obvious that not everybody will accept someone as the messiah just as some people these days can't accept that the earth is older than 6000 years and isn't the centre of the universe?
Yes, but if you refer to the texts of those people as source, then it is an observation which should be taken in consideration. If a jew text talks about messiah and somebody claims that this is the messiah your text talks about and those whos text it is say no it's not, we have a problem.
Especially when the text is very much dependable on interpretion.
There is Tacitus, Suetonius , Flavius Josephus, Lucian, Mara Serapion, then there is the Talmud.
There are no other sources than bible which have stories from people who actually lived on his time, period. And even those stories are supposedly eyewitness stories they are written not by them.
Suetonius wrote:
As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.
"Lives of the Caesars" chapter "The Life of Claudius"
...I read the book sometime ago and the mention it`s there.
I don't see that historical text supporting the existence of jesus.
#1521241 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-16 14:22:56 (5 months ago) - [Report]
@tidus
Quote:
Do you believe jesus was a real person who existed historically ?
Yes, I believe Jesus existed historically. That is also the consensus among historians as well. Even among agnostic scholars, like Bart D. Ehrman, holds to the historical existence of Jesus. Primarily because of archeological discoveries of pre-cannonical fragments. The earliest fragment of the writings that are among the books and letters of the New Testament belongs to the Gospel of John and is between 100-150 AD. The oldest of the biographical writings. The Old and the New Testament were collected and canonized in the 4th century. There is good reason to take the historical Jesus seriously and by historical Jesus I mean just that.
Quote:
How old is our planet?
Billions
Quote:
Does god answer your prayers?
I only say the Lord's Prayer.
Example:
Imagine one of your relatives has had a car crash. You will pray that he lives...
Imagine that a room next door, there's a patient that needs a heart. If your relative dies, he can have his heart. If he lives, he'll die without a heart.
By your terms, only God will know what will be the best outcome, so the fact that you pray will have no real interference towards the final decision, whose reasons you will remain unaware of.
Quote:
Why evil exists ?
As a possibility within all causes and effects or open choice for a persons, it is a difficult subject to dwell into and goes beyond religion.
Quote:
If God was schizophrenic, would he just hear an echo in his head?
If God was a human person, then he would hear voices, have anxiety etc like any other person with schizophrenia. If God was a chicken (Ps 91:4) he would have feathers and wings (Matt 23:37).
Quote:
Do you understand what means a fact ?
Yes, I understand what means a fact.
Quote:
Do you think for yourself ?
Yes, I think for myself.
Quote:
You may be an atheist but you don't know that yet, do you agree with this ?
Yes, because that is what I have been arguing in my last couple of posts - and the only point of agreement between Sniper and I. I am however not an atheist.
tidus wrote:
hOG wrote:
@tidus
Then what are the three questions.. I'll answer the questions, but give me something in return.
No they are not. btw Answer to me now.
Why don't you just admit that you invented the story so you could have this topic? It would be nice if you could answer the question yourself why you think atheism is good for a human, or why it is the case that you don't if you think that. Participation in the topics you create here in serious chat is vital. Else it is just post-and-run and NOT eligible for serious chat.
#1521245 by tidus (Power User) at 2013-02-16 15:02:50 (5 months ago) - [Report]
hOG wrote:
Why don't you just admit that you invented the story so you could have this topic? It would be nice if you could answer the question yourself why you think atheism is good for a human, or why it is the case that you don't if you think that. Participation in the topics you create here in serious chat is vital. Else it is just post-and-run and NOT eligible for serious chat.
Invented? Only invented staff is a guy named jesus in your post. Do you really think that i don't have smarter staff to do in my life and i mus post here invented staff ? If i was that fucked up in a head i would hide in my closet with my male friend like pengoisme. Seriously hoG thing about it. And i must say don't push that post-and-run staff on me cuz i never do that and i know the rules of serious chat.
About your answers: I am disappointed.
Quote:
Why evil exists ?
As a possibility within all causes and effects or open choice for a persons, it is a difficult subject to dwell into and goes beyond religion.
- just that ?
Quote:
Do you think for yourself ?
Yes, I think for myself.
-Iif you believe in god and his son , you don't think for yourself. Fact.
#1521247 by hOG (Crusader Mod) at 2013-02-16 15:19:23 (5 months ago) - [Report]
I think the only answers that would have satisfied you would have been your own. Since I do think for myself I happen to like my answers. Now that I have complied with your wishes, why don't you comply with mine? Like again you participate in the topics you create, which means with actual on-topic stuff and less of the personal attacking.
"Is atheism good for a human"? Or is it bad? How was that answered at the debate night you went to? If you went... Can you answer the question yourself, i.e. present facts and thoughts of your own as I did by bringing up atheism in history? You identify yourself as an atheist, presumably, then lets hear from you, the topic starter, why it is that atheism is good for humans.
(Power User) at 2013-02-16 00:27:18 (5 months ago) - [
Now it is you that want to compare atheism to religions! I don't. I'm taking what you call "few isolated examples" into consideration when talking about atheism. That' all..
(User) at 2013-02-16 15:30:47 (5 months ago) - [
