RE: Overstating the case for Athiesm.
March 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm
(This post was last modified: March 7, 2014 at 7:43 pm by rsb.)
Obviously he didn't rise from the dead. Living things don't do that. But given my observations of the numbers of multiple jesus(i?) that have existed, it could be even funnier than the life of Brian in reality.
Odds are good that at least one of the flying jesuses was crucified as his final act in his "fulfilling" the jewish myth of Christ, based upon earlier well known and wide spread myths of earlier religions, and at least one roman text noted it. I believe serious scholars, many not religious, are widely in agreement but hey that actually means nothing so I don't want to oversell the scant evidence that does exist. The appeal to reason of "romans kept good records" is BS. Prove that statement or quit spreading the nonsense that Christ never existed. Show me the roll of crucifixions that does not include this jesus guy. I really don't care what the big papers at the time were printing, or the intellectuals, how many of those sources gave serious print to David Koresh's claims of being the second coming of christ? Let alone the literally hundreds of other people who claim to be. I don't believe he was a big deal in the news.
Or the great athiesmo has told you otherwise? Or do you have a need for Christ to not have been loosely based upon an actual historical figure? The founders of Islam and the Mormons were both real, but it does not follow that anything else they said was not the ravings of a lunitic or a warlord or a con man. Why is christ different? I have nothing but bullshit alarms going off at everything I have ever read claiming that Christ was not a real historical figure. And everyone who has presented this story to me reminds me of a mormon testifying about Jesus and has about as much actual evidence to show me. If it is less credible than the mormons perhaps some wider testing and poling of the average uninterested persons reactions would be useful before using it as an argument for atheism. Yes, i have read all the quotes of quotes of quotes of scholars. No none of them are evidence one way or another. They are all nothing more than appeals to authority of questionable scientific validity.
P.S. it is unquestioned that the myth of Christ existed many years by finding writings predating him that are essentially the Bible. Now perhaps false profits are new things, and nobody crazy claimed to be Christ. I don't believe that is true, as it would be very different from normal human behavior. Multiple people have claimed to be the reincarnation of Buddha, despite the fact that he was basically an atheist, and probably would have called bs to any of them. He is also considered a god by some religions. Given that he personally said he was not devine or special and his words were not scripture, how do you explain the lack of Christs?
Odds are good that at least one of the flying jesuses was crucified as his final act in his "fulfilling" the jewish myth of Christ, based upon earlier well known and wide spread myths of earlier religions, and at least one roman text noted it. I believe serious scholars, many not religious, are widely in agreement but hey that actually means nothing so I don't want to oversell the scant evidence that does exist. The appeal to reason of "romans kept good records" is BS. Prove that statement or quit spreading the nonsense that Christ never existed. Show me the roll of crucifixions that does not include this jesus guy. I really don't care what the big papers at the time were printing, or the intellectuals, how many of those sources gave serious print to David Koresh's claims of being the second coming of christ? Let alone the literally hundreds of other people who claim to be. I don't believe he was a big deal in the news.
Or the great athiesmo has told you otherwise? Or do you have a need for Christ to not have been loosely based upon an actual historical figure? The founders of Islam and the Mormons were both real, but it does not follow that anything else they said was not the ravings of a lunitic or a warlord or a con man. Why is christ different? I have nothing but bullshit alarms going off at everything I have ever read claiming that Christ was not a real historical figure. And everyone who has presented this story to me reminds me of a mormon testifying about Jesus and has about as much actual evidence to show me. If it is less credible than the mormons perhaps some wider testing and poling of the average uninterested persons reactions would be useful before using it as an argument for atheism. Yes, i have read all the quotes of quotes of quotes of scholars. No none of them are evidence one way or another. They are all nothing more than appeals to authority of questionable scientific validity.
P.S. it is unquestioned that the myth of Christ existed many years by finding writings predating him that are essentially the Bible. Now perhaps false profits are new things, and nobody crazy claimed to be Christ. I don't believe that is true, as it would be very different from normal human behavior. Multiple people have claimed to be the reincarnation of Buddha, despite the fact that he was basically an atheist, and probably would have called bs to any of them. He is also considered a god by some religions. Given that he personally said he was not devine or special and his words were not scripture, how do you explain the lack of Christs?
