Atheists being asked about the existence of Jesus

[Rahn127]

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

A guy born of a virgin mother isn't possible, but a girl could be. It's called parthenogenesis.

There are no human cases of it that have been published, but one doctor I spoke to on the subject said that he had known of a few cases of it happening.

There is really no reason why it can't happen in humans, but like I said. "So far, no published cases of the event"

[Angrboda]

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

Whether Jesus was exceptional is a different argument. I said "if Jesus was just a man," he wouldn't be worth remembering. You're simply choosing to ignore context to make a point. Choosing to ignore what I wrote simply to score points sounds pretty contrarian to me.

[Lek]

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.

Sounds like we've both been on many of the same journeys. Believe me. I've been there and, in fact, I'm still there. There is no room for logic or human perception in science and no ability at all to determine truths that are not apparent in the natural world. If you rely solely on science for a determination of truth, then you have put your self in a box.

[Fake Messiah]

If you rely solely on science for a determination of truth, then you have put your self in a box.

Actually quite the opposite! Here is an account Alan Alda frequently talks about himself how he was stuck in the same wrong notion of spirituality, pseudoscience, religion and other nonsense until he uncovered the whole new fulfilling world of science. It's very inspiring for those of you still fooling yourself in religious mumbo jumbo

How could I fall into this faerie world? At fourteen, I had shaken my head and adamantly refused to let the monsignor think for me. At seventeen, I had earned a perfect score on my final in logic. But now I was reading book after book on spiritualism and extrasensory perception. At one point, I could cast a horoscope using a sidereal ephemeris, which is a kind of bus schedule of the planets. I was studiously exploring what I later came to think of as highly improbable stuff, but it headed me unexpectedly toward an interest in science. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was actually working my way through the same stages of pseudoscience that humanity itself had gone through on its way to real science.
I started by exploring some of the strange things I was reading about. I hooked up an oscilloscope to a ficus plant and tried to communicate with it. In those days there were people who were sure they could talk to plants, but I never got the time of day out of mine. I tried automatic writing, where you let your hand write whatever it’s inclined to put down. Some people thought if you did this you were communicating with the spirit world. Who knows, I thought, maybe the spirits could predict the first race at Aqueduct. If they could, they were keeping it to themselves.
Finally, I read a series of books about a character called Seth who was supposed to have lived two hundred years ago and could now channel himself through the body of a woman in a trance. Seth claimed to have done a lot of studying since his death and he had opinions about pretty much everything, including science. He said all matter was composed of only three basic building blocks. “Just ask any physicist,” he said. We had a physicist living across the street and I asked him about it, but none of this sounded familiar to him. Since he worked with a particle accelerator every day, I thought he ought to know, and I had doubts about Seth’s knowledge of science. I began reading every issue of Scientific American. If any of what Seth said was true, it would show up there. I was making a naïve but honest attempt to test the reality of what was in these books. In a way, it was the same way I had tested my mother’s reality as a child. What I found was a whole new way of thinking. Here, in these pages, no one believed what anyone said unless it could be tested by others. An exciting world had opened up to me.

[unfogged]

If you rely solely on science for a determination of truth, then you have put your self in a box.

What other option provides a reliable method for determining truth?

[Der/die AtheistIn]

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

A guy born of a virgin mother isn't possible, but a girl could be. It's called parthenogenesis.

There are no human cases of it that have been published, but one doctor I spoke to on the subject said that he had known of a few cases of it happening.

There is really no reason why it can't happen in humans, but like I said. "So far, no published cases of the event"

So Jesus was either a woman who pretended to be male or got mistaken for one, or a trans man. In that case the church should allow women and transgenders to be preists. 

[Rahn127]

A guy born of a virgin mother isn't possible, but a girl could be. It's called parthenogenesis.

There are no human cases of it that have been published, but one doctor I spoke to on the subject said that he had known of a few cases of it happening.

There is really no reason why it can't happen in humans, but like I said. "So far, no published cases of the event"

So Jesus was either a woman who pretended to be male or got mistaken for one, or a trans man. In that case the church should allow women and transgenders to be preists. 

Or more than likely, it was popular to tell stories about a guy who born from a virgin. Lots of other mythical tales have the central character ALSO born through a virgin birth.

It creates something unique and special about the character.

It's something, that at the time, they didn't know about biologically. Something else they got wrong about life.

I don't blame them. They were simply telling a story.
It's the people who came after them and said "Hey this isn't just a story. This is the word of a god."

It's those people I blame. Because now they are saying that their god got all the details about life wrong.

---

If you rely solely on science for a determination of truth, then you have put your self in a box.

Yes you put yourself in a box of truth.
A box that you can safely stand in and observe the world around you.

That box is something old, something borrowed and something blue. (Dr. Who reference)

That box will allow you to observe everything in the universe, throughout time.

And it's bigger on the inside

[Der/die AtheistIn]

So Jesus was either a woman who pretended to be male or got mistaken for one, or a trans man. In that case the church should allow women and transgenders to be preists. 

Or more than likely, it was popular to tell stories about a guy who born from a virgin. Lots of other mythical tales have the central character ALSO born through a virgin birth.

It creates something unique and special about the character.

It's something, that at the time, they didn't know about biologically. Something else they got wrong about life.

I don't blame them. They were simply telling a story.
It's the people who came after them and said "Hey this isn't just a story. This is the word of a god."

It's those people I blame. Because now they are saying that their god got all the details about life wrong.

I was joking, hence the flying spaghetti monster. 
I have a question, what if the people who created the story were also the ones who said it was the word of god?

[Lek]

If you rely solely on science for a determination of truth, then you have put your self in a box.

What other option provides a reliable method for determining truth?

How about a witness at a trial?  Or do you believe anything based on a logical conclusion or a philosophical reason?  Can science view anything in an abstract manner?  How about love and hate?  Are these just the results of chemical reactions in the brain or a mere physical reaction to a stimulus?  Scientism reduces the whole human being and experience down to a chemical level because it can't grasp things like emotions or hope in any way other than a physical testing.  According to science EVERYTHING we think, feel or do -everything we are- is a physical process. Everything about us is nothing but dirt in action.  Sorry bout that.  I guess my nonphysical side got carried away for a second.

[Aoi Magi]

Hmm, did Jesus exist?
Well, by Jesus if you mean Brian, then yes, he did exist and I have video evidence to prove it oh and his story is a lot more believable in that version too.

---

What other option provides a reliable method for determining truth?

How about a witness at a trial?  Or do you believe anything based on a logical conclusion or a philosophical reason?  Can science view anything in an abstract manner?  How about love and hate?  Are these just the results of chemical reactions in the brain or a mere physical reaction to a stimulus?  Scientism reduces the whole human being and experience down to a chemical level because it can't grasp things like emotions or hope in any way other than a physical testing.  According to science EVERYTHING we think, feel or do -everything we are- is a physical process. Everything about us is nothing but dirt in action.  Sorry bout that.  I guess my nonphysical side got carried away for a second.

How about a witness at a trial?
- their testimony is considered, yes, but it cannot be considered conclusive proof. Believers testimonies have been considered too, sadly they don't stand to scrutiny.

Or do you believe anything based on a logical conclusion or a philosophical reason?
- Logic, yes! Philosophy, well, those which I can understand logically, I do consider!

Can science view anything in an abstract manner?
- Ever hear of something called Maths?

How about love and hate?
- they exist and are not exclusive to humans either

Are these just the results of chemical reactions in the brain or a mere physical reaction to a stimulus?  Scientism reduces the whole human being and experience down to a chemical level because it can't grasp things like emotions or hope in any way other than a physical testing
- Yes, they are chemical reactions in response to various stimuli. It's not because science can't grasp anything else, rather it's because there has never been any demonstrable alternatives.