(December 11, 2019 at 6:35 pm)maxolla Wrote:

(December 11, 2019 at 5:57 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Really? I was going to list a bucket of Messiah figures from the period, but decided to leave it at just one for now. The Levant at the time was a hotbed of wandering Jewish Rabbi's. They were ten-a-penny.

Yet you are here arguing for the historicity of jesus because somehow you DO have time for that load of crap.

Mo and the handhi bhendhi ghandi are documented figures. Jesus is not.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims?

That is not atheism. Atheism claims to NOT believe in any god. I am perfectly comfortable to agree that it is possible that somehow there MIGHT be a god, but nobody has yet demonstrated that there IS a god, despite thousands of claimed gods. Not a single one has been demonstrated to exist ever. Not once in the entirety of human history.

Look at your own god. If you could demonstrate it to be real, then I would accept the evidence. But you cannot. Because you have none.

---

You do know that it was, at that time, a largely orally transmitted superstition, right? Are you suggesting that in the time of Mo, people never told stories? Really?

Ask yourself when was the koran first written.

Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims? 



My proof is I believe that Jesus existed and exists based on the evidence I have seen.

Sure, You can believe whatever you like. 

But why do you believe it? Why should anyone else? Have you seen jesus? Perhaps in a fevered dream, but unless you have solid evidence, your imaginings are useless to anyone else.

And didn't jesus supposedly die for our "sins"? Shouldn't jesus be dead now? Or is jesus alive? The living jesus? In which case, jesus didn't die at all. He was merely inconvenienced for a weekend for our sins. Not much of a sacrifice, is it? Particularly given that jesus is supposed to be god and knew from the get go that it would be temporary, and knew from the get go that he would not be dead at all. FFS, he is supposed to have spent that Easter weekend touring hell while his body was quietly cooling in a tomb that cannot be found. In fact even the gospels argue with each other about that very tomb.

Odd, Another no avatar no introduction newbie jumping into this particular thread, what are the odds.

(December 11, 2019 at 8:01 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Odd, Another no avatar no introduction newbie jumping into this particular thread, what are the odds.

27 trillion to 1 to happen normally.

100% if someone already in the thread invites friends as backup.

(December 11, 2019 at 6:58 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(December 11, 2019 at 6:35 pm)maxolla Wrote: Sorry, no dodging allowed. He who makes an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof for said claim. I actually making an affirmative claim. I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. Thgus I bear the burden of proof for that affirmative claim. What evidence have I? Well, I do not believe in any god/gods, nor any prophets, messiahs, jesuses, or any of it. My burden is met in full. Now how about YOUR burden of proof for YOUR claims? 



My proof is I believe that Jesus existed and exists based on the evidence I have seen.

1. Non belief isn't a claim it's non acceptance of a claim  .That's not a dodge .

2. Their is no credible evidence for Jesus

Now its your turn.  Prove it.

(December 11, 2019 at 8:40 pm)maxolla Wrote:

(December 11, 2019 at 6:58 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: 1. Non belief isn't a claim it's non acceptance of a claim  .That's not a dodge .

2. Their is no credible evidence for Jesus

Now its your turn.  Prove it.

Nope. You presented no credible evidence of Jesus and your attempts failed thus far .That alone justifies my lack of  acceptance of the claim .Nice burden shifting .

(December 9, 2019 at 5:51 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 3, 2019 at 10:58 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Would a rudimentary sense of morality and justice and a skin slightly thicker than an over-ripe tomato be too much to ask? The "god" that you describe mopes worse than a teenager after their first breakup every time one of its creations has the temerity to exercise its free will. And all because your "god" was too witless to find a better way to deliver His Message than entrusting it to a 7th century pedophile.

Empty claims as usual.
He didn't made it in such a way you wouldn't rage about it.

Hardly empty. The historical record is quite clear about who Muhammed did when and what age she was. Funny how God AllMighty can deliver His Message but can never seem to remember to tell his Prophets not to have sex with children.

(December 11, 2019 at 9:04 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(December 11, 2019 at 8:40 pm)maxolla Wrote: Now its your turn.  Prove it.

Nope. You presented no credible evidence of Jesus and your attempts failed thus far .That alone justifies my lack of  acceptance of the claim .Nice burden shifting .

Nope.  I did present a credible evidence of his existence.  Multiple accounts by his followers in their own writings as well as Josephus Pliny and Tacitus who were not his followers but were well know historians of that time period.  If you refute well known history then your idea of evidence otherwise is outside the reasonable.

None of the gospels were written by any follower of any jesus. Three historians noted the existence of a group of people, and the rough contents of their beliefs.

We already know that there is a jesus myth, and a jesus religion. How would any of the above be evidence, of any kind, for Some Guy™?

(December 11, 2019 at 10:44 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: None of the gospels were written by any follower of any jesus. Three historians noted the existence of a group of people, and the rough contents of their beliefs.

We already know that there is a jesus myth, and a jesus religion. How would any of the above be evidence, of any kind, for Some Guy™?

Once again we get the discredited name of Josephus and others as proof.

Not to mention that the gospel of Mark has at least three distict authors.

What’s next, “look at the trees!!”?

(December 10, 2019 at 11:38 pm)maxolla Wrote: I think you bring up a relevant argument for sure. “the book” must refer to the Christian bible. That isn’t really a book and has been mischaracterized as a book, but is necessarily a collection of manuscripts, letters, and historical data. The fact that, for the most part, the data found in “the book” is corroborated with other writings gives credence to it I think. I’m not saying the reasonable people should take the writings on faith alone but there is a record in biblical scripture that is corroborated outside itself.

Except, most of the events in the Bible, which is a book, regardless of whether or not you want to call it that, are not corroborated by any other sources.

(December 11, 2019 at 7:48 am)Klorophyll Wrote: Since you're asking this kind of questions, I think we should agree first on a definition of the word of the god we're trying to prove.

Well if you somehow have a way to define what god is, I'd be ecstatic to hear it - you'd be the first person in human history who is able to do so.

(December 11, 2019 at 7:48 am)Klorophyll Wrote: You don't know is the same as you don't assume God exists .. eh?

The two aren't exactly mutually exclusive, are they? No, they are not. I can say that I do not assume or believe god exists and also say that I'm unsure, meaning that, at some point, my view can change, based on new evidence being presented.

edit: And no, they are not the same thing.

(December 11, 2019 at 7:48 am)Klorophyll Wrote: I don't think you really take the time to understand my replies. You asked why would I take the prophet's word for communicating with God, I answered the prophet did more than just claim. He made miracles happen, and since we didn't witness them, the only way to check whether he is a fake or not, is to investigate how reliable are the people who reported the event, thus the theory of Isnad.

And how do you know that the prophet "did more than just claim?" Did you read it in the Quran, by any chance?

(December 11, 2019 at 7:48 am)Klorophyll Wrote: It's more than just a point, you're trying to depict religious belief as something too vague to understand. If I believe in 99% of the Buddhist teachings and believe an additional christian creator, then no, I'm not a Buddhist, I am believing in pure salad, and me identifying as such is just nonsense coming out of my mouth. Beliefs should also be coherent and internally consistent, they're not a shopping cart.
And I am still waiting for the name of the Buddhist sect that believes in god.

I'm not saying that religious belief is "something too vague to understand," I'm saying it can often be more vague than we'd like it to be. You and I seem to fundamentally disagree on this point, so I'm not sure that there's much reason to continue to go back and forth on this particular point. You say blue, I say red, and I'm not changing my opinion because you've given me no good reason to. We can leave it where it is.