Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[rsb]

So everyone who believes in a false religion was told a story at one time, and trusted or had faith in the person telling the story thus translated their faith to the story itself. Many of those story's are obviously complete BS. Examples, Everything said by Mormons, the story of Noah, and the many predictions of the end of the world.

However I am concerned that some Atheists are engaging in exactly the same sort of faith based BS. Examples:

Argument for Christ never existing.
Starts invariably with "Romans were good record keepers." BS really better than us because we don't track all births and destroy many records after a retention schedule. But Ok, show me the list of records you have reviewed, you do read Latin right? Oh wait this is a faith based wives tale told by you? Ok sorry I mistook it for an actually attempted factual statement.

Moves on to "only so and so mentions the crucifixion outside the christian fake works". Ok this is a good one. Please show me the comprehensive list of crucifixions where Jesus blah blah blah is missing. No? In fact that guy you mentions is the only mention of a specific Crucifixion in roman records, wow that actually seems to argue for the possible existence of a guy calling himself Christ and making wild claims about being a king.

Now the stuff about the 3 wise men, and lack of tax records showing any order of the journey to Bethlehem is plausible and credible, and the history of the origin of the older forms of this story is well established, but why pollute this stronger message with the earlier faith based attempts to "convert" that more resemble religious tactics that rational thought?

In fact, I would be surprised if in any given year before -2000 from now there was not at least 2 people claiming to be the old christ, and in all following years at least 2 people claiming to be christ 1 and christ 2 (2nd coming) just in the middle east.

Same thing with evolution vs. origin of life, the truth is we have absolutely no idea how life originated or even if we were seeded from space. Anyone saying otherwise is simply speculating or worse, outright lying. We know all life evolved from a common source, as witnessed by us all having DNA, ribosomes, and many other chemical in common, but we have no ideal (really) what came before this common ancestor, other than plausible educated guesses. The evidence for evolution is rock solid and super strong, why pollute it with speculation about origins and not simply admit it is a mystery? We can actively disprove most religious stories about origins without resorting to speculation, why present an alternate theology when there is just a mystery.

Why the overselling?

[CapnAwesome]

I don't think that the case for Atheism really has anything to do with whether or not Jesus has a historical basis. If Jesus is based on a real Rabbi from 2000 years ago, that makes God not more real than the existence of any other Rabbi. As for why people don't want to admit that the origins of life is 'just a mystery' and leave it at that, I'd imagine it has something to do with wanting to solve that mystery. That's how science moves forward, by actually trying to answer questions.

[pocaracas]

Oh my.... what if I arrive at atheism after being imbued with a muslim society?
Will I be using the roman bookkeeping and a reason for that?
Origin of life... origin of the universe... god of the gaps, whatever god that may be...

[Simon Moon]

So everyone who believes in a false religion was told a story at one time, and trusted or had faith in the person telling the story thus translated their faith to the story itself. Many of those story's are obviously complete BS. Examples, Everything said by Mormons, the story of Noah, and the many predictions of the end of the world.

However I am concerned that some Atheists are engaging in exactly the same sort of faith based BS. Examples:

Argument for Christ never existing.
Starts invariably with "Romans were good record keepers." BS really better than us because we don't track all births and destroy many records after a retention schedule. But Ok, show me the list of records you have reviewed, you do read Latin right? Oh wait this is a faith based wives tale told by you? Ok sorry I mistook it for an actually attempted factual statement.

Moves on to "only so and so mentions the crucifixion outside the christian fake works". Ok this is a good one. Please show me the comprehensive list of crucifixions where Jesus blah blah blah is missing. No? In fact that guy you mentions is the only mention of a specific Crucifixion in roman records, wow that actually seems to argue for the possible existence of a guy calling himself Christ and making wild claims about being a king.

Now the stuff about the 3 wise men, and lack of tax records showing any order of the journey to Bethlehem is plausible and credible, and the history of the origin of the older forms of this story is well established, but why pollute this stronger message with the earlier faith based attempts to "convert" that more resemble religious tactics that rational thought?

In fact, I would be surprised if in any given year before -2000 from now there was not at least 2 people claiming to be the old christ, and in all following years at least 2 people claiming to be christ 1 and christ 2 (2nd coming) just in the middle east.

Same thing with evolution vs. origin of life, the truth is we have absolutely no idea how life originated or even if we were seeded from space. Anyone saying otherwise is simply speculating or worse, outright lying. We know all life evolved from a common source, as witnessed by us all having DNA, ribosomes, and many other chemical in common, but we have no ideal (really) what came before this common ancestor, other than plausible educated guesses. The evidence for evolution is rock solid and super strong, why pollute it with speculation about origins and not simply admit it is a mystery? We can actively disprove most religious stories about origins without resorting to speculation, why present an alternate theology when there is just a mystery.

Why the overselling?

The case for atheism is that theists have not met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god exists.

Most atheists do not argue that Jesus did not exist. Because it doesn't matter. The existence of a historical Jesus offers ZERO evidence for any of the supernatural events associated with him.

You seem to think that the only god atheists do not believe in is the Christian one.

As far as the origin of life goes, while the exact mechanism of how it occurred is not known, it is known that there is no need to invoke a god in order to explain it.

So, basically, none of the stuff you mentioned have anything to do with 'the case for atheism'.

Care to rephrase?

[Tonus]

Argument for Christ never existing.

There are some people who will insist that there is no evidence that the Jesus who was referred to as the Christ ever existed, there are others who accept it for argument's sake, and there are others for whom it's a moot point. I'm of the latter camp, that the point isn't whether or not some guy named Jesus existed and people claimed that he was the son of god. The point is whether the Christ --god made flesh, who performed miracles and revived himself after death-- ever existed.

The evidence for evolution is rock solid and super strong, why pollute it with speculation about origins and not simply admit it is a mystery?

As far as I can tell, the most common answer you will get from atheists here regarding the origins of life is indeed "we don't know."

[Minimalist]

Argument for Christ never existing.

Feel free to trot out your "evidence."

P.S. you can skip the whole, Pliny/Tacitus/Suetonius/Josephus line of shit. It's been dealt with before.

[Fromper]

Other responses here pretty much beat me to it.

Whether or not a Jewish carpenter named Jesus lived 2000ish years ago, preached to the Jews, and got nailed to a cross is unknown to me. Growing up Jewish, I was actually taught in Hebrew school that even most Jews agree that he probably DID exist. They just disagree that he was the son of God or that any of the miracles associated with him happened.

As for the origins of life, you are correct. That's a mystery. That's why scientists are working to figure out that mystery, because "God did it" isn't a satisfying answer.

I'm just not seeing how anything in your post has anything at all to do with atheism.

[rsb]

Argument for Christ never existing.

Feel free to trot out your "evidence."

P.S. you can skip the whole, Pliny/Tacitus/Suetonius/Josephus line of shit. It's been dealt with before.

Well as to the evidence of many, many Jesus (Jesusi? plural) it is a myth and many many people all over the world have made the crazy claim to be him over and over again. The police and psychiatrists in Israel have specific response protocols to those kinds of people. The last one I remember that made the news was David Koresh. I somehow ^doubt(fixed) he was unique or special, and am suspicious of people making bs general claims like "Romans were excellent records keepers" to justify a little to convenient argument. I don't want any of whatever faith in that your selling.

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. I just think trying to go further is a waste and most likely unknowable, as history is a really spotty many times falsified thing.

As to knowing about the origin of life, I agree it would be nice to know, however knowledge begins by knowing what you do not know.

---

...
The case for atheism is that theists have not met their burden of proof to support their claim that a god exists.

Most atheists do not argue that Jesus did not exist. Because it doesn't matter. The existence of a historical Jesus offers ZERO evidence for any of the supernatural events associated with him.

You seem to think that the only god atheists do not believe in is the Christian one.

As far as the origin of life goes, while the exact mechanism of how it occurred is not known, it is known that there is no need to invoke a god in order to explain it.

So, basically, none of the stuff you mentioned have anything to do with 'the case for atheism'.

Care to rephrase?

Well my definition is slightly different. Atheists should believe based upon good evidence that any specific theology is incorrect, including the many postulated gods of the various theologies. This is based upon specific claims of each theology being provably false. The historical lack or specific or multiple existence of Jesus is not a relevant fact with enough evidence to make a difference. All muslims, jews, and christians profess or have professed to believe in Noah. Noah is a myth that could have never happened, as proven by the laws of physics and geological record of no global flood. Thus muslims, jews, and christians are all retelling at least one fairy tail. Seems like a pretty tight argument compared to "romans were good record keepers I think?"

Another amusing one, the spate of deaths among snake handling preachers. Clearly god does NOT protect you from snake bites.

[Simon Moon]

Well my definition is slightly different. Atheists should believe based upon good evidence that any specific theology is incorrect, including the many postulated gods of the various theologies. This is based upon specific claims of each theology being provably false.

Then you do not seem to understand where the burden of proof lies.

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.

It is not up to me to define their god, then prove it doesn't exist. It is up to them to define their god, then provide demonstrable evidence and reasoned support their case.

Until they do, I have zero justification to accept their god/theology claims.

The historical lack or specific or multiple existence of Jesus is not a relevant fact with enough evidence to make a difference.

I think we agree here. The existence of a historical Jesus offers no evidence for the god claims about him.

[rsb]

"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.