Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 30, 2012 at 4:49 am)Micah Wrote: Not all things that cannot be disproved are on the same level. Fairies and the Christian god are not on the same level.
Actually, yes they are. How can anybody say they are NOT?
Quote:I know you didn't reference fairies; I was just using them as an example.
A bad example.
Quote:The person Jesus almost certainly existed.
So what?
Quote:We find out about him not only in Christian texts, but also non-Christian texts. For instance, the writings of Tacitus and Josephus.
So jesus might have been real? Well it's hardly a biggie even if true.
Quote: As to the divinity of Jesus, let us take the Gospel of Mark into consideration. We know that Mark was the author of this gospel because of the writings of Papias, which we get from Irenaeus. He says that Mark was linked to Peter and upon Peter's death there was the dire need to write down the knowledge that Peter possessed. Mark, who would have been familiar with what Peter knew, wrote this down into his gospel. Peter died around 67 C.E. and the Gospel of Mark was written around 70 C.E. It is perfectly possible that Mark adequately wrote down what Peter (an eye witness) knew. This is an adequate argument for the veracity of the gospels, since the other two of the synoptic gospels were clearly derived from Mark. And John, which was written independently of the synoptic gospels, corroborates their accounts. If the gospels are reliable, then their account of Jesus is.
I am a soft atheist, so I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus for various reasons, but how can the above argument not be seen as a good one?
The thing is, I can't believe anybody cares to argue the case for the existence of jesus, it's just a distraction.
The real argument is whether god is real and supernatural. None of the above stated is even close to evidence for that.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Quote:If a universe has always existed or came out of nothing, then there is no need for any gods. Name something that has never been needed that exists.
Let's not forget that at the simplest level, that god is a substitute for the unknowable.
I agree that if a universe always existed or came out of nothing, then there would not necessarily be a need for god(s), however, we do not know what happened before the big bang, so why is it nonsensical to suggest that god(s) could have always existed? If god(s) always existed, then there would not be a need for the universe to have always existed/come out of nothing. The god(s) could create it, since he/she/they exist beyond the temporal realm and are omnipotent.
Quote: Why is entirely possible that gods exist?
The universe has always existed; the universe came out of nothing.
Now, substitute "the universe" with god(s) and nothing changes. You just have one more step because god(s) would have to create the universe, which, if god(s) exist, isn't that big of a deal. If you are willing to believe the first two statements with "the universe" and deny the substitutions of "god(s)," how are you able to do so with one-hundred percent certainty? We have no knowledge of what came before the big bang, and it is "enitrely possible."
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Quote:If a universe has always existed or came out of nothing, then there is no need for any gods. Name something that has never been needed that exists.
Let's not forget that at the simplest level, that god is a substitute for the unknowable.
I agree that if a universe always existed or came out of nothing, then there would not necessarily be a need for god(s), however, we do not know what happened before the big bang, so why is it nonsensical to suggest that god(s) could have always existed? If god(s) always existed, then there would not be a need for the universe to have always existed/come out of nothing. The god(s) could create it, since he/she/they exist beyond the temporal realm and are omnipotent.
Quote: Why is entirely possible that gods exist?
The universe has always existed; the universe came out of nothing.
Now, substitute "the universe" with god(s) and nothing changes. You just have one more step because god(s) would have to create the universe, which, if god(s) exist, isn't that big of a deal. If you are willing to believe the first two statements with "the universe" and deny the substitutions of "god(s)," how are you able to do so with one-hundred percent certainty? We have no knowledge of what came before the big bang, and it is "enitrely possible."
Who created your god?
We say that there is a "possibility" of the universe existing forever. You religionist are "absolutely sure" that your god exists, but fall short of providing any evidence.
Nevertheless, the "arguments for" the existence of your god are very weak; so unless you can prove with demonstrable proof that your god exists, a universe existing without god has a better probability of existing than an universe with one.
Yea the whole Jesus thing is BS there is no more evidence for him than Hercules ( <--Flavious Josephus actualy mentions him multiple times in his writings.) There is ZERO contemporary evidence of Jesus PERIOD. Also where Josephus mentions Jesus that has been shown to be a 2nd century FORGERY.
Its funny how Philo of Alexandria mentions almost a dozen false prophets of his time but fails to notice an ex-dead guy walk into town with a mob from the grave or fail to catch wind or ever notice all the so called "miracles" that JC supposidly performed??? we all know that the speed of light pales to the speed of GOSSIP....
Philo (20 BCE – 50 CE), contemporary..but never mentions (he even lived in the right area......)
Josephus (37CE – 100CE) not contemporary **known forgery**
I realize that lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary... But FUCK its hell of alot more compelling then a compulation of hearsay, lies, deception and forgeries.......The silence in this case is Deafaning.....
Did I make a good point? thumbs up I cant help it I'm a Kudos whore. P.S. Jesus is a MYTH.
June 30, 2012 at 5:47 am (This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 5:48 am by Light of Truth.)
CreedofHeresy
Quote: Tacitus also briefly mentions followers of 'Christus' but never mentions the man himself.
Um, no. To quote from Tacitus: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus." He clearly mentions the "man himself." How is Jesus but an afterthought to Josephus? He says some of the same things Tacitus does. For instance, they both reference Pontius Pilat.
Also, how do you disregard Papias' writings of Mark writing Peter's (an eye witness) account of Jesus (not just the man, but his divinity)?
Quote: Actually no, the universe has NOT always existed.
I gave another possibility - "the universe came out of nothing." Did you skip over that part of my post, perhaps?
Norfolk and Chance
Quote: So jesus might have been real? Well it's hardly a biggie even if true.
The thing is, I can't believe anybody cares to argue the case for the existence of jesus, it's just a distraction.
The real argument is whether god is real and supernatural. None of the above stated is even close to evidence for that.
How is it hardly a "biggie" if Jesus did exist? Did you even read all of my post? Or did you just copy and paste? Papias' writings of Mark add to the veracity of the gospels, which would, in turn, add to the veracity of Jesus' divinity. That is a HUGE deal.
You say that none of the argument is any evidence of god/the supernatural. How so? If Mark's gospel is reliable, per Papias' writings, then Jesus would be divine. Therefore, he is god and did create the universe. All of that comes with his divinity. All that has to be proven is Mark's account because the other two synoptic gospels are derived from him. The above is a good argument for the veracity of Mark, which would prove that god exists.
Forsaken
Quote: Who created your god?
We say that there is a "possibility" of the universe existing forever. You religionist are "absolutely sure" that your god exists, but fall short of providing any evidence.
Nevertheless, the "arguments for" the existence of your god are very weak; so unless you can prove with demonstrable proof that your god exists, a universe existing without god has a better probability of existing than an universe with one.
I am an atheist and do not believe that god(s) exist for, presumably, a lot of the same reasons you do. I just don't disregard things as easily as you. I am not "absolutely sure" of anything. Some Christians may be, but I am not a Christian. Why are you lumping me in with them? All I am saying is that the case can be seen as a good one because of evidence. So, we both say that the universe "possibly" has always existed. Why can't it be the same for god(s)? There is no evidence that proves contrary. We have no knowledge of what was before the big bang. No knowledge at all. How can you be so quick to disregard things that you have no evidence for when you, apparently, seem so high on the concept of evidence?
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
Quote:If a universe has always existed or came out of nothing, then there is no need for any gods. Name something that has never been needed that exists.
Let's not forget that at the simplest level, that god is a substitute for the unknowable.
I agree that if a universe always existed or came out of nothing, then there would not necessarily be a need for god(s), however, we do not know what happened before the big bang, so why is it nonsensical to suggest that god(s) could have always existed? If god(s) always existed, then there would not be a need for the universe to have always existed/come out of nothing. The god(s) could create it, since he/she/they exist beyond the temporal realm and are omnipotent.
Quote: Why is entirely possible that gods exist?
The universe has always existed; the universe came out of nothing.
Now, substitute "the universe" with god(s) and nothing changes. You just have one more step because god(s) would have to create the universe, which, if god(s) exist, isn't that big of a deal. If you are willing to believe the first two statements with "the universe" and deny the substitutions of "god(s)," how are you able to do so with one-hundred percent certainty? We have no knowledge of what came before the big bang, and it is "enitrely possible."
And if that brings us back to "well ok then, if gods created the universe, then who created the gods?"...
To which the apologist answer is usually along the lines of "the creator did not need creating, he is eternal"...
Obvious answer to that is "If you can postulate an eternal creator, then why can't the universe instead be eternal? And thus, why a need for a god?" and we're back to square one.
The bottom line for me is that I have no real reason to believe that there is any need for a creator of the universe. None at all.
I'm also content in the fact that "what was before the big bang" is a mystery that is unlikely to be ever solved, without having to make up an answer that possibly or certainly includes god.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
THE MOST ignorant thing a person can say is to demand empirical evidence of a non empirical subject. I certainly don't call Dawkins ignorant, but I do call his foray into religion so.
Just like his criticism of theologions who violate science in opposing it with religion, his correct assertion, equally he commits the same glaring fallacy in reverse.
Those of you calling me ignorant of theology based on scientific reasoning, I can't laugh enough at you.
Please continue wasting your time with your idiocy.
Me, I shall continue to FULLY appreciate scientific endeavour as much as any scientist, and religion unencumbered by logical fail.
June 30, 2012 at 5:53 am (This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 6:06 am by Light of Truth.)
Xyster, how do you know the writing of Josephus that is in question is a forgery? What evidence do you have? I would be happy to be proven wrong if you can present evidence.
Also, how is there "zero contemporary evidence?" Mark's gospel was written four decades after Jesus' death. And the whole gospel is merely the writing down of Peter's (an eye witness of Jesus and his ministry) knowledge. Furthermore, Mark probably had his gospel account finished within three years (possibly less than three)of Peter's death, which means that he would have adequately been able to write down what Peter knew. How is that not sufficient evidence?
Norfolk and Chance,
You say that if god(s) created the universe, then we must ask "who/what created them?" Why do we have to ask that? If the universe could have always existed, why couldn't god(s) always have existed? There is no reason god(s) must be removed from the same logic you apply to the universe.
"God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).
June 30, 2012 at 5:59 am (This post was last modified: June 30, 2012 at 6:09 am by Norfolk And Chance.)
(June 30, 2012 at 5:47 am)Micah Wrote: How is it hardly a "biggie" if Jesus did exist? Did you even read all of my post? Or did you just copy and paste? Papias' writings of Mark add to the veracity of the gospels, which would, in turn, add to the veracity of Jesus' divinity. That is a HUGE deal.
You say that none of the argument is any evidence of god/the supernatural. How so? If Mark's gospel is reliable, per Papias' writings, then Jesus would be divine. Therefore, he is god and did create the universe. All of that comes with his divinity. All that has to be proven is Mark's account because the other two synoptic gospels are derived from him. The above is a good argument for the veracity of Mark, which would prove that god exists.
Just because somebody says they witnessed some dude performing magic, does not mean that dude really performed magic, even if you can completely prove that the witness was actually writing about a real man.
(June 30, 2012 at 5:53 am)Micah Wrote: You say that if god(s) created the universe, then we must ask "who/what created them?" Why do we have to ask that? If the universe could have always existed, why couldn't god(s) always have existed? There is no reason god(s) must be removed from the same logic you apply to the universe.
You're not really getting it are you?
First of all the statement "god created the universe, god did not need creating, because he is eternal." is a claim made by christians...
My logical response "well why couldn't the universe be eternal instead? If so, then there would be no need for god" is not a claim that there could not be a god, therefore nothing is being removed from any logic according to your rules.
I'm simply saying that there is no need for a god as far as I can tell.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
I cant help it I'm a Kudos whore. P.S. Jesus is a MYTH.
