Overstating the case for Athiesm.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

At this VERY MOMENT there's an Australian dude going round the world telling people he's the son of God. He DEFINITELY exists. I saw him on This Morning with Phil & Holly.

Does the fact of his existence have ANY bearing on the validity of his claim?

I think the MAIN reason to steer clear of debating the historicity or otherwise of Jesus if at all possible is that it's irrelevant to the question of the existence of gods. At any given moment there's SOMEBODY going round announcing his own divinity - back in the early 90s Davids Icke and Koresh were at it simultaneously - all of which only goes to suggest that if Jesus DID live 2000 years ago, statistically at least he's far more likely to have been just another nutcase than anything else.

---

Did the man on This Morning turn water into wine or raise a person from the dead?

I'm sure it would documented if he did.

How much credit does a person get for turning water into lemonade?

[Alex K]

---

---

Did the man on This Morning turn water into wine or raise a person from the dead?

I'm sure it would documented if he did.

How much credit does a person get for turning water into lemonade?

If you don't need lemons, it's a pretty good trick...

[heathendegenerate]

someone told me that those fancy jews of the bible didn't come around until after jesus died.. by like 60 years. Do you think the jews would just forget about jesus and his blasphemy? they wouldn't speak of it?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Who says Romans were better record-keepers than us? Saying they're good record-keepers doesn't imply that their record-keeping is better than modern, computerized record keeping. They had good roads, too; but i wouldn't want to drive on one.

Skeptics are allowed to appeal to appropriate authority, like historians on history. It's appeal to inappropriate authority, like Einstein on God, that is a fallacy. Though it may be an old wive's tale, you have to do more than assert that if you want us to think it's an actually attempted fact statement.

Jesus not existing is not an atheist position, it's a Jesus-mythicist position. Debunking Jesus does not make someone an atheist.

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.

I think that's a fair statement, but again, you're complaining about Jesus mythicism, not atheism.

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?

Some people think they know more than they actually do. This doesn't require faith, just arrogance.

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.

So what?

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.

We have no idea at all? Really?

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 phrase 'plausible, educated guesses' does not match up well with the phrase 'have no idea'.

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?

It's called forming a hypothesis. It's a necessary step in 'doing science'.

We can actively disprove most religious stories about origins without resorting to speculation, why present an alternate theology when there is just a mystery.

Speculation is not 'alternate theology', 'plausible explanations' are not 'just a mystery'. We're allowed to talk about abiogenisis if we want to. It's an intersting subject.

Why the overselling?

Why the need to try to control what other people talk about?

[Doubting Thomas]

Argument for Christ never existing.
Starts invariably with "Romans were good record keepers."

It's not just that there was no evidence for Jesus' trial, execution, and burial in Roman records, there are no contemporary records of his existence anywhere, and the gospel stories weren't written until about 70 years after Jesus supposedly existed, and even they conflict with each other on the details. Nor did one person ever write down all the miracles Jesus supposedly performed.

The simple fact is that the gospels are the claim, not the evidence. What we're left with is an old book full of fanciful stories which are likely fiction, and no archaeological evidence to show that a historic Jesus ever existed.

And lastly, I'll gladly believe that Jesus was a real person if evidence ever appears. But if you want me to believe he's the son of an all-powerful deity, you'd better prove that, too.

[Minimalist]

Depends on the individual, wouldn't you say?

And I'm still not certain what your problem is with the Jews.

No, individuals are largely the same unless you are insane and ascribe special powers to them. ADDED being specific, they all lived and died, they all have tales told about them after their death, they all interacted with the government. It is in fact far more credible that a person was "erased" than they did not exist 2000 years ago from that sort of evidence. Claiming theological evidence and broad philosophical and theological "evidence" supports the non existence of a specific individual makes you the Ken Ham of atheism. I will not support a "this guy never lived" factual display, as your observations are nothing more than observations of inconsistencies and gaps in historical records, nothing more.

My problem with the jews is they are stupid fakes who make everything up just like christians and muslims. They also believe in fairy tales about moses and their history, which are most likely more false than mormon history. If you dont' agree I can't possibly see how you are possibly an atheist and not just an incredibly deceptive jewish theologian.

Are you afraid to criticize jews who believe in their religion, or jews who were raised in their religion, or the jewish tradition, and why treat them differently than substituting christian or scientology or koreshian.

Kindly check out my Damned Jews thread for your answer there. No, what pisses me off with jesus freaks is that they take jewish books and twist them into their own bullshit. I have my own idea about how the jews ended up as the bad guys in this little drama that xtians concocted. And it has precious little to do with any fucking scriptures.

I would also say there is a big difference between Alexander the Great or Augustus Caesar than some nameless peasant farmer who died and was dropped into a hole in the ground. They are all individuals but there are vast differences in their impacts.

"Jesus" seems to have no impact during his life and a legend which grew bigger...just like the average fish-story...with each re-telling. This makes me suspicious.

[rsb]

back on topic, you "atheists" appear to be trusting in theology (thus either retards or hypocrites), and often make weak self serving arguments, just like theists.

How do we trust in theology?

This'll be good.

Because your definition of "GOD" is theology?

Just saying.

Please dont commit suicide, and perhaps the super best friends of THY LORD AND GOD SOUTH PARK would be a better sig and sock puppet for you, how about find everything in theology which was true, starting with faith and dogma, and "I am not divine, my words are not sacred" ?? How many frustrated prophets of THY LORD AND GOD begged you to not be such a dick, Judas?

[*Deidre*]

Be a seed planter. No pressure, no pushing of our opinions on anyone. Just a seed planter, and you never know, those seeds you plant may just blossom over time into someone who is lost in the trappings of religion, to explore what you've said. I have no desire to turn anyone from religion, I just plant seeds of a truth they haven't yet considered or have been too afraid to.

I used to be afraid but no one should be afraid to find truth for themselves.

[rsb]

Faith from the bible:

Belief in things unseen, evidence.

Just saying.

You would be lucky to receive my seed.

[*Deidre*]

Faith from the bible:

Belief in things unseen, evidence.

Just saying.

You would be lucky to receive my seed.

I once had "your seed." And I decided to stop watering it.
Beliefs and opinions aren't evidence.
But if you wish to think so, it isn't my place to stop you.