Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Cepheus Ace]

a guy born of a virgin mother... you're right I don't believe such a guy ever existed for the simple ****ing reason that human babies require actual ****ing without any protection to be conceived. CASE CLOSED

[Lek]

a guy born of a virgin mother... you're right I don't believe such a guy ever existed for the simple ****ing reason that human babies require actual ****ing without any protection to be conceived. CASE CLOSED

Do you think that it's possible for anything to be true if it can't be explained by science or detected by our physical senses?

[Abaddon_ire]

a guy born of a virgin mother... you're right I don't believe such a guy ever existed for the simple ****ing reason that human babies require actual ****ing without any protection to be conceived. CASE CLOSED

Do you think that it's possible for anything to be true if it can't be explained by science or detected by our physical senses?

Good old appeal to the supernatural. A moments thought would answer your question. Are you willing to do that?

[Lek]

Do you think that it's possible for anything to be true if it can't be explained by science or detected by our physical senses?

Good old appeal to the supernatural. A moments thought would answer your question. Are you willing to do that?

I've been doing it for years.  Obviously, your answer to my question would be "no".  If so, you've put a strict limit on truth.  If there is a way, you will never find it because you can't step out of the box you've put yourself in.

[The Grand Nudger]

a guy born of a virgin mother... you're right I don't believe such a guy ever existed for the simple ****ing reason that human babies require actual ****ing without any protection to be conceived. CASE CLOSED

Do you think that it's possible for anything to be true if it can't be explained by science or detected by our physical senses?

That's an irrelevant question when discussing a story in a book.

From what I've read most modern day historians agree that Jesus did exist, had a ministry and was crucified by the Romans.  As far as the biblical accounts go, it's all a matter of whether you choose to believe the testimonies of the writers or not.

There is no other account, so.."as far as" is all that there is. I'm surprised that christians aren't falling to their knees and praying to dozens of gods on such flimsy say-so. I strongly suspect that they would be if the church hadn't stamped that shit out, lol.

[Abaddon_ire]

Good old appeal to the supernatural. A moments thought would answer your question. Are you willing to do that?

I've been doing it for years.  Obviously, your answer to my question would be "no".  If so, you've put a strict limit on truth.  If there is a way, you will never find it because you can't step out of the box you've put yourself in.

And you are wrong. It is because I am willing to consider other thoughts that I am an atheist. It is because you are unwilling to consider other thoughts that you are not.

Do you not realise that you just engaged in simple projection right there?

You ignored the fact that I was born and raised RCC. You ignored the fact that curiosity led me to investigate and learn astrology, tarot, dowsing, alt-med, reincarnation and so forth. Go learn something outside the christian box you have created for yourself.

Oh and all of those are bollox as well. All of them. Just like christianity.

[unfogged]

Do you think that it's possible for anything to be true if it can't be explained by science or detected by our physical senses?

The real question is whether or not it is reasonable to believe the claim that something is true if it can't be detected or explained.

There may be many things that are actually true that human will never detect but that is not justification for believing without evidence. Faith is just a less derogatory word than gullibility but ends up being the same thing.

[Angrboda]

Nobody would care about Jesus if he was just a man, so that's not what's being argued when people argue a historical Jesus.  Pretending to argue one thing when you're really arguing something else is dishonest.  If Jesus wasn't a miracle man and God, then he's not worth remembering.  Arguing that he was a man is beside the point.  If people have no faith in their arguments that Jesus performed miracles and was resurrected, they shouldn't waste people's time with pointless claims about a historical Jesus.  There were plenty of "historical" people who lived and died.  Nobody cares about merely historical people.

I disagree.  People DO seem to care about 'merely historical people'.  We read what they wrote, we read what was written about them, and we quote them to make points.

Socrates, Nietzsche, Shakespeare, Rodin, Twain, Curie, Barton - tons more, none of whom were miracle workers or gods, yet we still discuss them and their contributions to the human condition.

Regarding Jesus, your own Thomas Jefferson didn't for a moment think he was divine, but regarded him as a great moral philosopher.

It seems we can care a great deal about the 'merely historical people'.

Boru

You're being purposely obtuse. Obviously I meant that they would not care about Jesus in the way they do if he were merely a historical man. You took what I said and interpreted it very literally in order to make a contrarian point. Additionally, what you said is not even true. We don't care about Socrates and Nietzsche and so on because they were merely historical people. They weren't. They were exceptional people, and that is why we care about them, not because they were historical. So you're doubly wrong.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I disagree.  People DO seem to care about 'merely historical people'.  We read what they wrote, we read what was written about them, and we quote them to make points.

Socrates, Nietzsche, Shakespeare, Rodin, Twain, Curie, Barton - tons more, none of whom were miracle workers or gods, yet we still discuss them and their contributions to the human condition.

Regarding Jesus, your own Thomas Jefferson didn't for a moment think he was divine, but regarded him as a great moral philosopher.

It seems we can care a great deal about the 'merely historical people'.

Boru

You're being purposely obtuse.  Obviously I meant that they would not care about Jesus in the way they do if he were merely a historical man.  You took what I said and interpreted it very literally in order to make a contrarian point.  Additionally, what you said is not even true.  We don't care about Socrates and Nietzsche and so on because they were merely historical people.  They weren't.  They were exceptional people, and that is why we care about them, not because they were historical.  So you're doubly wrong.

*shrug*  I think you're being needlessly defensive.  In addition to which, your point about Socrates and Nietzsche is misplaced.  The case can be made (although you don't have to agree with it, I certainly don't) that Jesus was an exceptional person. This, according to what you just said, would make him worth caring about.

You also said 'If Jesus wasn't a miracle man and God, then he's not worth remembering.'  Isn't this rather a case of special pleading?  Socrates wasn't a miracle man and Nietzsche wasn't God, but we find both of them worth remembering, so why not Jesus?

Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Jesus was an historical figure, but that he never worked a miracle and wasn't in the least sense divine. He (with more than a little help from Paul) founded what was to become a world religion  that has had a staggering impact on human civilization.  Doesn't that make him worth remembering?

Lastly, I reject the label 'contrarian'. I can only respond to what you said, not to what you meant.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Hey, Der/die AtheistIn, maybe you could say something in these lines