Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 16th October 2017, 20:04

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
Interestingly, the number of historians that think Jesus never existed is actually growing.
Emotions are a weakness, used to control you. Remove them.
RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
A fun question, Ray, particularly in light of a crisis of faith and a version of your religion without any actual god;  

What is the value, to your christless religion, of either character having been historical? Do they need to be real for the message to be worthwhile..and what is the message?
Eat em up beat em up then switch sides.

RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
History is not a popularity contest . It's weather something the historic method the case for Jesus has failed this on every level . And the myth position (a totally academic and peer reviewed  class of idea's) has passed .
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.

Inuit Proverb

RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
(13th October 2017, 00:04)RayOfLight Wrote:
(12th October 2017, 10:47)Minimalist Wrote: 1.  If evolution were suddenly proven false that would still not provide one scintilla of evidence that the bible bullshit story is "true."

2.  Please don't give me the "all historians agree" horseshit.  They do not.  And when you ask what evidence is used to base their conclusion what you end up with is a regurgitation of the same old gospel shit which no real historian would ever consider historical evidence.

Please don't tell me what I can and can't write here, okay? good!  Now, I didn't say "all historians agree", what I said was " a good number of historians" that's different. And the Gospels are indeed historical materials; you don't have to be a Christian to accept that. Now are all the things written in them as true, some yes and some no, but you don't dismiss entire books just because you happen to not agree with what they say. History is full of documents that are not 100% accurate. Nevertheless, they're used by historians.

But historians know the difference between corroborated historical fact and blather about the supernatural.

(13th October 2017, 00:40)RayOfLight Wrote:
(13th October 2017, 00:34)Khemikal Wrote: You made claim to facts that support your religion.  I'd like to see at least one of them.

That (Historical Jesus) existed that someone called Paul existed, that he wrote several of the epistles (not all), the earliest of them was in the 50s of the first century. That there were early Christians in Jerusalem that claimed their leader was the Messiah, and that he rose from the dead. Now did he rise? That's something the historians are in dispute about.

The "Jesus, Paul, and disciples never existed" is just something that is popular by folks that are into either conspiracy theory or would rather take the easy way out.

Facts? Historians don't debate how jesus rose from the dead. He didn't. They do debate his existence.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing."  - Samuel Porter Putnam

RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
(13th October 2017, 00:54)Cyberman Wrote: Interestingly, the number of historians that think Jesus never existed is actually growing.

I personally am convinced that Jesus of Nazareth (the historical person) is likely either a complete fiction or a composite character. Jesus the miracle-working god-man can of course be rejected out of hand since that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That is not to say that some intelligent people don't make a decent case for an historical Jesus (Bart Erhman being one of them last I knew); it's just to say I'm not persuaded.

For me the key is reading the NT in the rough chronological order it was written in. The earliest stuff that's closest in time to the alleged life of Christ (certain of Paul's letters), when read without the re-framing assumptions of the much later gospel mythos, raises certain interesting questions. Why does Paul mostly talk about a celestial being "seated in the heavenlies"? Why no specifics of his earthly ministry? Why no appeal to living eyewitnesses to validate Paul's teachings about Christ, but rather, to a personal subjective experience in the form of a heavenly vision?

Reading the NT this way also makes the gospels look much more like corrective proto-orthodoxy to try to undo Paul's proto-gnosticism.

But ... as others have pointed out, this is not really a very interesting question. Answering it one way or the other doesn't change anything of substance unless maybe you're a fundamentalist Bibliolater of some kind whose whole world flies apart if every jot and tittle of scripture isn't literally true and inerrant.
RE: Two scenarios that may/may not happen.
Ray. Most here are ex Christians. Most here are sceptics.
We don't believe in woo ...religious or otherwise.
I hate religion like I hate the Death Star!

Ray, do you believe in non religious woo? Fairies?, healing crystals? Astrology?
We don't believe in miracles or supernatural stuff (read Disney magic), therefore we don't believe in the business end of the bible?
Sure it's got some entertaining stories with talking snakes and donkeys, but they can't offer you the golden carrot, the afterlife, based on that alone.
This is why the mechanics of religion cannot function without indoctrination at a young age where the mind believes what it is told by the parents.
If you're questioning your faith now, then you didn't drink enough koolaid, or you didn't like the flavour.
And if you ever become an atheist, you'll also be told that you were never a real God boy, like they do to us...
Quote:AtlasS33 wrote:
"When it comes to the deiety I worship, he sent a book, it contained a message. I took that message, tested it, then I realized he is God : it didn't break against reality."
Pulse Wrote:
~ Atheism seems so incredibly counter intuitive, that to even begin to take it seriously, one has to suspend all logic."
Godscreated Wrote:
~ Magic is an illusion, what God does isn't an illusion it is real and unexplainable. If you mean I would call it a miracle, you're right."

Religion: making the uncomfortable comfortable for thousands of years.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Never had that happen before Astonished 6 261 11th August 2017, 17:21
Last Post: Brian37
  Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three) Little Rik 3049 174688 11th April 2016, 08:38
Last Post: Little Rik
  Why do bad things happen? Because they do. Brian37 14 1711 8th April 2016, 08:29
Last Post: BenMighty
  The flame between two darknesses: A celebration of reality FebruaryOfReason 10 2212 23rd March 2016, 17:53
Last Post: FebruaryOfReason
  do you worry about if anything bad would happen if christianity died? Rextos 26 2051 13th February 2016, 03:05
Last Post: Ivan Denisovich
  Two Catagories? - not sexy this post. Goosebump 9 833 24th December 2015, 20:23
Last Post: Lutrinae
  I think my mother may be becoming an atheist, advice? IanHulett 22 2375 17th October 2015, 17:09
Last Post: abaris
  Two Undeniable Truths Why Theism is True and Atheism and Agnosticism are Not True HiYou 49 6518 21st July 2015, 06:59
Last Post: KUSA
  Two babies discussion. MysticKnight 213 18259 24th February 2015, 08:34
Last Post: h4ym4n
  There are two misstakes in the title of this thread. Whateverist 10 1128 18th October 2014, 17:44
Last Post: Aoi Magi

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)