Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Angrboda]

I'd say you're adding some variant of humanism, the belief that human life is central and important. The values of atheism do not commit one to action because it isn't a set of values. Atheism plus humanism does commit you to action because it does assert a set of values that, arguably, are threatened by theism. I agree with Simon, you're adding things to atheism that are neither essential to it, nor entailed by it. The question of exactly what you're adding may be an important distinction, but you've moved the discussion outside of the purview of atheism qua atheism by doing so.

[rsb]

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?

Not really. It all sounds like one hand clapping to me.

I guess I will have to join you on the anti-theist part, without wholehearted philosophical agreement. I reserve the right to trademark atheist though and steal it from you

[Rahul]

Not really. It all sounds like one hand clapping to me.

[Brakeman]

Let's get this straight..

If I claim that the Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox story is just a fable and not historical, how much is my position eroded by the finding of a Canadian genealogy that mentions a man named Paul C. Bunyan 1788 - 1849? How much does it change the debate if the Paul Bunyan believers conceded that the Ox wasn't really blue? If Paul was huge, but not really 40 feet tall, maybe only 12 or 15?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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?

There are numerous passages about guys named "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" in the Old Testament. Those particular guys probably existed. However, the Jesus Christ character in the New Testament was most likely a complete fabrication of Paul based upon the earlier characters who had similar attributes.

The NT Jesus is further tainted because the guys who wrote the Gospels about him did it decades after his alleged crucifixion. At that time the Jews were in full revolt mode against the Romans and getting killed and enslaved by the hundreds of thousands. So the writers most likely incorporated tales involving the three main rebel leaders into their fairy tale about a guy who would restore the glory of the Jews when they were collaborators with the Assyrians and Babylonians.

We do know, or should know, that the many tales where the Jesus character is talking to one or two characters, such as Satan, are pure BS. Who was there to record their conversations and activities? The same is true of the Islamic hadiths involving Mohammed and his buddies. The writers made them all up hundreds of years later.

Religious fairy tales are BS. But they do present ideas for coping with the many trials and tribulations of everyday human life. There are no gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts (holy or otherwise), resurrections, heavens, or hells other than the ones each person creates himself. When you die you will be forgotten unless you have done something noteworthy. And then future generations will turn you into a myth that will not resemble what you really were.

[Rahul]

There are no gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts (holy or otherwise), resurrections, heavens, or hells other than the ones each person creates himself.

So you're a "strong" atheist? I haven't met too many of those.

[rsb]

Let's get this straight..

If I claim that the Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox story is just a fable and not historical, how much is my position eroded by the finding of a Canadian genealogy that mentions a man named Paul C. Bunyan 1788 - 1849? How much does it change the debate if the Paul Bunyan believers conceded that the Ox wasn't really blue? If Paul was huge, but not really 40 feet tall, maybe only 12 or 15?

Well if you found a genealogy that Paul C Bunyan existed, and he was a lumberjack, I would suspect he told a lot of tall tales and was a good liar if he was in fact the source of the fables. However there is no comparing a genealogy to the bible, the genealogy is way more trustworthy However none of this is any sort of an argument against some guy living at one time or many people who later formed the composite of a self serving myth.

---

There are numerous passages about guys named "Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" in the Old Testament. Those particular guys probably existed. However, the Jesus Christ character in the New Testament was most likely a complete fabrication of Paul based upon the earlier characters who had similar attributes.

The NT Jesus is further tainted because the guys who wrote the Gospels about him did it decades after his alleged crucifixion. At that time the Jews were in full revolt mode against the Romans and getting killed and enslaved by the hundreds of thousands. So the writers most likely incorporated tales involving the three main rebel leaders into their fairy tale about a guy who would restore the glory of the Jews when they were collaborators with the Assyrians and Babylonians.

We do know, or should know, that the many tales where the Jesus character is talking to one or two characters, such as Satan, are pure BS. Who was there to record their conversations and activities? The same is true of the Islamic hadiths involving Mohammed and his buddies. The writers made them all up hundreds of years later.

Religious fairy tales are BS. But they do present ideas for coping with the many trials and tribulations of everyday human life. There are no gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts (holy or otherwise), resurrections, heavens, or hells other than the ones each person creates himself. When you die you will be forgotten unless you have done something noteworthy. And then future generations will turn you into a myth that will not resemble what you really were.

I am with you on the spirit of the post, however I think you have just a couple details wrong. There is no mention I am aware of of "jesus" in the OT as written by Jews, however the whole thing probably was edited later on in history on both the Jewish and Christian sides. I go by the dead sea scrolls because they are the oldest radiocarbon dated artifacts that are not really subject to revisionist crap. But really none of those words are evidence for anything specific. How about starting with the basic laws(whatever, facts) of physics, chemistry, and biology instead of fairy tales.

The oldest torah is about as old as the historical christ and the oldest bibles, not older. The events in Masada are further hard core historical evidence for early jewish nationalist movements and fanatics. These obviously build on and support the general blah blah blah one will come who will rah rah rah texts. So bottom line, I believe the movie "the life of brian" is probably a pretty accurate portrait of the historical jesus as our know history is consistent with, and perhaps the Jewish tradition is not as old as it is sold to be.

[Brakeman]

Let's get this straight..

If I claim that the Paul Bunyan and his Big Blue Ox story is just a fable and not historical, how much is my position eroded by the finding of a Canadian genealogy that mentions a man named Paul C. Bunyan 1788 - 1849? How much does it change the debate if the Paul Bunyan believers conceded that the Ox wasn't really blue? If Paul was huge, but not really 40 feet tall, maybe only 12 or 15?

Well if you found a genealogy that Paul C Bunyan existed, and he was a lumberjack, I would suspect he told a lot of tall tales and was a good liar if he was in fact the source of the fables. However there is no comparing a genealogy to the bible, the genealogy is way more trustworthy However none of this is any sort of an argument against some guy living at one time or many people who later formed the composite of a self serving myth.

It wouldn't matter that there was a lumberjack who told stories, it would be much too far removed from the original story for him to be the character, despite being the muse or the author.

The real lumberjack Paul would have to be "The Character" in the story with substantially the same history. As it would be, a possible "real" Paul Bunyan would not have had any history of the life told in the story but rather a completely different one. Thus he is not the "character" in the story. The story remains non-historical, just like Jeebus!

[Minimalist]

I think you need to stop speaking to xtians and start talking to some jews.

http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTM...17-03.html

Countering the Question: Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus as the Messiah?

Answer:

The question above is a typical one asked by Christian Missionaries. The answer is easy, if one understands Jewish beliefs.

Jews do not believe that the Messiah is a part of G-d, or Divine in any way, more than any other person. Jews look only to G-d for our salvation, and when the time comes for G-d to bring the anointed king, then it shall happen. Jews do not concern ourselves with the messiah’s identity, for the messiah is a person and the messiah's coming does not change our relationship with G-d. Jews do not accept the notion that Scripture “foretells” that G-d would robe Himself in flesh; in fact, to Jews, this idea is idolatry, and we stand against it.

The reason why Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah is straightforward: he did not meet the requirements in the job requisition! G-d outlined these requirements in the Bible. The key aspect of proof is in the state of the world.According to the Bible, amongst the most mission of the messiah includes returning the world to return to G-d and G-d's teachings; restoring the royal dynasty to the descendants of David; overseeing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple; gathering the Jewish people from all over the world and bringing them home to the Land of Israel; reestablishing the Sanhedrin; restoring the sacrificial system, the Sabbatical year and Jubilee. This simply has not happened. Judaism has no notion of the messiah not doing these things on the first visit, let along needing a second visit to do these things. Whenever these things are described in the Tanach, the description says that the messiah will come and do these things—once.

Oh, you want specifics? According to Torah, the Messiah will:

Ezekiel 37:26-28: Build the Third Temple

Isaiah 43:5-6: Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel

Isaiah 2:4: Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."

Zechariah 14:9: Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel - uniting the entire human race as one: "G-d will be King over all the world—on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One"

Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Oh, and there is none of this 'second coming' shit, either. The messiah gets one bite at the apple.

[rsb]

I think you need to stop speaking to xtians and start talking to some jews.

http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTM...17-03.html

Countering the Question: Why Don't Jews Believe in Jesus as the Messiah?

Answer:

The question above is a typical one asked by Christian Missionaries. The answer is easy, if one understands Jewish beliefs.

Jews do not believe that the Messiah is a part of G-d, or Divine in any way, more than any other person. Jews look only to G-d for our salvation, and when the time comes for G-d to bring the anointed king, then it shall happen. Jews do not concern ourselves with the messiah’s identity, for the messiah is a person and the messiah's coming does not change our relationship with G-d. Jews do not accept the notion that Scripture “foretells” that G-d would robe Himself in flesh; in fact, to Jews, this idea is idolatry, and we stand against it.

The reason why Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah is straightforward: he did not meet the requirements in the job requisition! G-d outlined these requirements in the Bible. The key aspect of proof is in the state of the world.According to the Bible, amongst the most mission of the messiah includes returning the world to return to G-d and G-d's teachings; restoring the royal dynasty to the descendants of David; overseeing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple; gathering the Jewish people from all over the world and bringing them home to the Land of Israel; reestablishing the Sanhedrin; restoring the sacrificial system, the Sabbatical year and Jubilee. This simply has not happened. Judaism has no notion of the messiah not doing these things on the first visit, let along needing a second visit to do these things. Whenever these things are described in the Tanach, the description says that the messiah will come and do these things—once.

Oh, you want specifics? According to Torah, the Messiah will:

Ezekiel 37:26-28: Build the Third Temple

Isaiah 43:5-6: Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel

Isaiah 2:4: Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore."

Zechariah 14:9: Spread universal knowledge of the G-d of Israel - uniting the entire human race as one: "G-d will be King over all the world—on that day, G-d will be One and His Name will be One"

Jesus fulfilled none of these messianic prophecies.

Oh, and there is none of this 'second coming' shit, either. The messiah gets one bite at the apple.

I understand all of that.

However none of those arguments actually prove that the jews didn't just make it all up later, just like the Christians, or that the folks on Masada or others were not really really crazy like batshit crazy. Furthermore there is no rational basis for you to impose rationality or Constancy on cross theology comparisons. If I accept your argument here I am basically saying that your evidence from the Jewish theology must be accepted as true to disprove the existence of a historical christ. That is about as plausible as saying that David Koresh was not the second coming of christ because some other guy really was.

None of that is evidence of the non-existence of the historical christ. It is further evidence that all theologies are really crazy, but not convincing regarding a historical jesus. I just don't accept any religious arguments concerning truth, apparently you do because you have imposed conditions on the true historical jesus. I presume none of that, I just think that him and his followers were most likely crazy, if they ever existed.