The debate is over

[Light of Truth]

Norfolk and Chance,

Does it prove that jesus was the son of god? No.

No. I'm an atheist. Why would I try to prove to you that Jesus is god? I am saying that is is possible, not likely, but possible. And I don't think that you can truly disagree with me.

In regards to the rest of what you said, it just seems like you are trying so hard to be an atheist. I do not try to be anything. I merely seek truth. From what I have gathered, you simply WANT to be an atheist. We will have to agree to disagree. It has truly been fun debating with you tonight/this morning.

Skepsis,

Do you even understand what the FSM relates to? It is analogous to God. Not Jesus. I don't look to this as a be-all end-all, but it is ilustrative of my point that sitting around mentally stroking yourself, wondering what's possilbe, is a waste of time. Admitting that anything is possible is one thing, but to discuss it with any seriousness is another.

And just for kicks, I figure I'd make it clear that I'm apathetic towards the idea of Jesus's existence. I haven't looked into it, and don't care to. I generally concede his existence when spoken to on the subject. That said, his divinity is another matter entirely. Conceding Jesus is simple, but conceding the divine nature of his pig exorcisms and the whatnots is just silly without some crazy evidence. And I'm not talking about some vague, almost ambigous reference from a historian about "Jesus" that could have been a reference to Christian dogma at the time.

I have been referencing Jesus throughout this whole thread. If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god. Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god). I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence.

I don't sit around and think about what all is possible. I think about what is probable. Jesus being god (Irenaeus -> Papias -> Mark's account of what Peter [an eye witness] knew) is something that is not just possible (like solipsism), but something that actually has some evidence.

---

It is hilarious to me that people are seriously comparing Jesus to the FSM. There is evidence for Jesus' divinity. The FSM was made up in response to Jesus, albeit at a later date. Both are possible, but the FSM is NOT probable. Jesus is a lot more probable than the FSM. Come on, people.

I'm not being funny, but you're not much of an atheist are you?

I am a soft atheist (agnostic atheist). I do not know whether or not there is a god (or gods), and you don't either. Based on what I see around me, I don't think that there is a god (or gods). Everyone should be soft atheists, in my opinion.

[Norfolk And Chance]

No. I'm an atheist. Why would I try to prove to you that Jesus is god? I am saying that is is possible, not likely, but possible. And I don't think that you can truly disagree with me. [

In regards to the rest of what you said, it just seems like you are trying so hard to be an atheist. I do not try to be anything. I merely seek truth. From what I have gathered, you simply WANT to be an atheist. We will have to agree to disagree. It has truly been fun debating with you tonight/this morning.

So, you have no come back to my final comment on the matter which was "I do not need to consider the fact that god could have created the universe, because I do not know that god is real"

By the way, you think I WANT to be an atheist, I think you are a christian.

[Light of Truth]

A comeback to you saying you don't need to consider something? If you don't want to consider something that could be possible, and if looked at from the perspective of Christianity, then a bit more than just possible, then whatever. Be completely close-minded.

I am a Christian? No, I am not. How is that possible when I don't think that a god exists?

[Tempus]

Your mind is going to be blown when you see all the evidence for Mohammed's revelation. There's plenty accounts of divine happenings throughout history. Jesus' existence being verified by non-Biblical texts is not the same as Jesus being the son of a deity. If someone demonstrates Mohammed's existence does that lend credence to him being a prophet? His existence is a requisite condition for him being a prophet, yes, but in no way would demonstrating his mere existence mean anything attributed to him is true -- additional claims require additional evidence. Same with Jesus.

[Light of Truth]

I am not trying to prove that Jesus is god. How many times to I have to stress that?? All I am trying to bloody do is show that it is possible, which it is.

[Xyster]

OK OK OK .. FFS there is NO more evidence for Christinsanity than there is for the Hindu religion or Muslims or any of the other THOUSANDS of religions..... The best Josephus/Tacticus/and anyother "evidence" I have ever seen put forth all it can show is there were early believers, SO WHAT.... that carries no validity on whether its TRUE or not.... From the so called evidence presented for the case for Christianity if that made it true then EVERY religion with simular claims would also be valid.... So every religion today would be the one true religion. (even though contradict each other on a great meny things)

[Light of Truth]

Read the above post, bro.

[Norfolk And Chance]

I am not trying to prove that Jesus is god. How many times to I have to stress that?? All I am trying to bloody do is show that it is possible, which it is.

How is it possible that jesus is the son of god or is god. We don't know that there is a god?

Prove god, then consider the possibility of jesus being his son or god himself.

For me, you seem a bit too keen on trying to get people to agree with you that it is possible that jesus is god, I'd say you have an agenda. And that agenda will eventually come out.

[Skepsis]

I have been referencing Jesus throughout this whole thread. If Mark is reliable, then Jesus is god. Therefore, Jesus and god are not separate entities, but the same, which is why I said the FSM cannot be compared to Jesus (god). I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable, which can be backed up with evidence.

How the hell are you an atheist? You think Mark is reliable, but somehow don't think that what you say follows from this understanding is valid.
But you're wrong here too! Whether or not Mark was completely trustworthy, that doesn't mean anything towards his extraordinary claims of Jesus's divinity.
So, the FSM can't be compared to Jesus because Jesus isn't really Jesus he is actually God but he is not God because he is Jesus? I guess it's my turn to ask if you are serious. Just, really?

I don't sit around and think about what all is possible. I think about what is probable. Jesus being god (Irenaeus -> Papias -> Mark's account of what Peter [an eye witness] knew) is something that is not just possible (like solipsism), but something that actually has some evidence.

Yeah, so I went back and, from page 3 where you made your case, I checked off every time you said "possibly", then did the same for "probably" "if" "might be" and "could", finally comparing this to how many mentions you made of the probable. I have eight direct uses of "possible", twelve uses of the "probably" group, but only one single use of "probable".
So yeah, I beg to differ when you said that you are talking primarily about the probable.

It is hilarious to me that people are seriously comparing Jesus to the FSM. There is evidence for Jesus' divinity. The FSM was made up in response to Jesus, albeit at a later date. Both are possible, but the FSM is NOT probable. Jesus is a lot more probable than the FSM. Come on, people.

There IS NO evidence for Jesus's divinity. NONE. Regardless of whether or not Mark and all his compadres were freaking immaculate in their moral records, we all have the capacity to be wrong. The evidence needed for an extraordinary event needs to be more than the word of some guy that you think is trustworthy. You can believe pretty much anything else he has to say, perhaps. None of that really matters. It olds no bearing unless his claims of the supernatural are validated, which they aren't because trustworthiness has no bearing on supernatural claims.

I'm not being funny, but you're not much of an atheist are you?

I am a soft atheist (agnostic atheist). I do not know whether or not there is a god (or gods), and you don't either. Based on what I see around me, I don't think that there is a god (or gods). Everyone should be soft atheists, in my opinion.

You already contradicted your own claim to be an atheist; as you said, Mark is trustworthy, so -> Jesus is divine -> and divinity implies a god.

[Light of Truth]

Norfolk and Chance,

"We don't know that there is a god?" We also don't know that there isn't. Prove to me that there is not a god. And I will play your games.

You think I have an agenda? That is hilarious. I have been a part of this forum longer than you by about a year. I have been an atheist far longer than the amount of time I have been on this forum. I just try to keep people honest.


Skepsis,

Are you kidding me? I never said Mark was reliable. I qualified my statements with the word "if." Did you miss that? And you demonstrated that you have no idea about what Christianity is. Look up proto-orthodox Christologies. Jesus is considered fully god and fully man.

In regards to your second quote/commentary, are you being serious? I only brought in the word 'probable' when the FSM was brought up. Doing an analysis of my word use without contexts is irrelevant. Come on, man.

I did not contradict myself. I never said Mark was trustworthy. I qualified every one of my statements with the word "if." I also said "I am an atheist, but I have been operating under the assumption that Mark is reliable," which you quoted. Did you miss all of that or something?