Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Minimalist]

I agree with all the posters here who say they don't care and he certainly was at best a street preacher mild magician and more likely a composite myth.

Really.

H. L. Mencken noted this:

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

If he did not, what is there to worship? Xtians do not worshp the name and they certainly disavow the philosophy. They worship the miracle stories and without those what is left?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If Jesus was still wiggling on the cross after 2,000 years there might be a case for believing in the story. Or if James and John had called down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans it would have been impressive.

They had all of this magical witchcraft power but were nowhere to be seen when Jesus was getting nailed to the cross.

[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?

[Simon Moon]

"Theists, all of them, are making the claim that a god or gods exists. It is not up to me to disprove all their postulated gods, or that their theology is incorrect."

Well living in the real world, and not a philosophy department, I think I do have an obligation to actively disprove every evil, godforsaken, hate filled political warlord who is abusing theology to promote his power base. It is called being a citizen. And I have an obligation to help the people they are lying to. Just my view of the world.

When people who happen to believe in a good also believe in justice and democracy, and it aligns with my views of moral behavior, I will not refuse to work with them just because they happen to believe fairy tails. For an example of this, look at the recent history of the justice system in Texas. They killed an innocent man, and as a result a lot of people who are bible thumpers have admitted they should not pretend to know things they don't know. Perhaps they can eventually admit that about all sorts of things.

But now you are talking about a different subject.

I thought we were discussing the case for atheism. Now you are talking about the case for anti-theism.

The case for atheism is that theists have not met their burden of proof. That is all that is required to be an atheist.

As far as anti-theism goes, we're on the same page.

[rsb]

"I thought we were discussing the case for atheism. Now you are talking about the case for anti-theism. "

Hair successfully split, good shot sir.

Seriously why even discuss atheism then, when the problem of highly harmful religions is so serious, especially in the US and mideast?

[Minimalist]

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,

What myth is that?

[rsb]

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,

What myth is that?

Dead sea scrolls, jewish end of days and Messiah, or take your pick the reincarnation of moses. Perhaps even a reincarnation of Budah?

Given that the Torah is probably concurrent with the advent of Jesus, and it is probably supported by the lack of camels in the area 3000 years ago vs. the books content, I can't even say that the historical jesus predated the myth of the Messiah.

Additionally: What I do know is he was not the first "son of god" myth and Ra and krishna both predated him.

[Simon Moon]

"I thought we were discussing the case for atheism. Now you are talking about the case for anti-theism. "

Hair successfully split, good shot sir.

Seriously why even discuss atheism then, when the problem of highly harmful religions is so serious, especially in the US and mideast?

I don't believe it is hair splitting.

They are 2 different subjects. One specifically concerns the existence of gods, and the evidence for or against the claim. The other specifically concerns the real world, negative consequences concerning dogmatic theistic beliefs.

True that they are related subjects, but not necessarily contingent on each other.

There are plenty of people that believe in a god, that are anti-theist (most deists, for example). There's at least one on this board, DeistPaliden.

And there are plenty of atheists that could care less about religion and just go on with their lives.

Your contention that I am hair splitting is a perfect reason why, before discussions on important subjects are entered into, terms need to be defined.

Why discuss atheism? Because it is an interesting conversation. I am interested in knowing what people believe, and why they believe it. That itself is more than enough reason to have these discussions. Discussing anti-theism, and the harmful effects of dogmatic theistic beliefs, is arguably a more important conversation, but they are different conversations.

[rsb]

So some more research on the dead sea scrolls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_sc....281991.29

Book of Isaiah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

From there:


The book opens by setting out the themes of judgement and subsequent restoration for the righteous. God has a plan which will be realised on the "Day of Yahweh", when Jerusalem will become the centre of his worldwide rule. On that day all the nations of the world will come to Zion (Jerusalem) for instruction, but first the city must be punished and cleansed of evil. Israel is invited to join in this plan. Chapters 5–12 explain the significance of the Assyrian judgement against Israel: righteous rule by the Davidic king will follow after the arrogant Assyrian monarch is brought down. Chapters 13–27 announce the preparation of the nations for Yahweh's world rule; chapters 28–33 announce that a royal saviour (a messiah) will emerge in the aftermath of Jerusalem's punishment and the destruction of her oppressor.
The oppressor (now identified as Babylon rather than Assyria) is about to fall. Chapters 34–35 tell how Yahweh will return the redeemed exiles to Jerusalem. Chapters 36–39 tell of the faithfulness of king Hezekiah to Yahweh during the Assyrian siege as a model for the restored community. Chapters 40–54 argues that the restoration of Zion is taking place because Yahweh, the creator of the universe, has designated the Persian king Cyrus the Great as the promised messiah and temple-builder. Chapters 55–66 are an exhortation to Israel to keep the covenant. God's eternal promise to David is now made to the people of Israel/Judah at large. The book ends by enjoining righteousness as the final stages of God's plan come to pass, including the pilgrimage of the nations to Zion and the realisation of Yahweh's kingship.

The dead sea scrolls MAY predate Jesus by radiocarbon dating, however as many copies of the book were found, the practice of copying the book was established. Thus I conclude they are not originals. Thus I conclude that it is reasonable and plausible that the jewish messiah myth predated the alleged historical jesus or jesus(pl). Does not mean he did exist, however "romans kept good records" is certainly NOT a true statement, it is a wonder we have anything at all from that period.

---

...
I don't believe it is hair splitting.

They are 2 different subjects. One specifically concerns the existence of gods, and the evidence for or against the claim. The other specifically concerns the real world, negative consequences concerning dogmatic theistic beliefs.

Well then I think basically "atheism" in your definition is useless as the lack of evidence for a god has absolutely no "proof" that there is not one. Any number of examples of things which are now known to be true, but previously had no evidence, abound. The proof that existing theologies are false and those who spread them are liars has actual teeth. I guess faced with that definition I would have to join Sagan as an agnostic. I just don't the philosopher's definition of logic regarding proof, if there were a "philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position" then I can't even prove gravity, and in fact can "disprove" it by citing lack of evidence and contrary evidence. However that just seems like nonsense, and given I can do really neat things if I put on my engineer hat with all sorts of false approximations of the truth. It just seems like a really outdated form of thinking.

I appreciate where you are coming from but when you have people pushing their theology who are proven liars and scoundrels, you need a little more than just atheism as you define it.

[Simon Moon]

Well then I think basically "atheism" in your definition is useless as the lack of evidence for a god has absolutely no "proof" that there is not one.

This is exactly why atheism is NOT the claim that there are no gods. Atheism is the lack of BELIEF that gods exist.

Most atheists are open to the possibility that a god exist. What our position actually is, is that there is insufficient supporting evidence to justify BELIEF that a god exists.

Do you understand the difference?

Any number of examples of things which are now known to be true, but previously had no evidence, abound.

True. But until the evidence was found for them, there was no justification to BELIEVE they existed.

If demonstrable evidence is found to support the claim that gods exist, you know what I'll do? I'll alter my view and be compelled to accept their existence.

I guess faced with that definition I would have to join Sagan as an agnostic.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions.

I appreciate where you are coming from but when you have people pushing their theology who are proven liars and scoundrels, you need a little more than just atheism as you define it.

I am also am anti-theist.

Atheism defines my position as one that lacks belief that a god exists. That is all that it is meant to define.

Anti-theism defines my position as one that hates dogmatic theistic beliefs, and their negative effect on the planet.

Agnostic defines me as one that does not claim to know, with absolute certainty, that gods do not exist.