Atheism-o-phobia Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
661

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just say you don’t want to read the above because it’s to difficult to refute the many historical scholars who wrote about Jesus Christ, I understand, I do. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

What’s the matter little man, afraid of what you might watch?[/quote]

Took a good look at it, did you? They do not answer the question of why the many ancient scholars would write about someone who was not actually alive. Or why massive amounts of people would follow someone who never existed. And finally why so many people would go to their death for a person who never lived. Their argument makes no more sense than your comical rants of your humanistic “logic”. LOL!

Please don’t ever quit posting, you are an ally in the Christian cause, You just don’t know it. God uses you as a pawn.

662

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Well, hold on now, in my above comments I was talking about the existence of God. Not that Jesus Christ lived. Jesus is as much an historical figure as Plato. As you know Christians believe that he was the personification of God on earth. That can be debated by non-Christians, but his existence, that’s a fact!
[/quote]

I’m sorry, Zeb. You can curse me as the day as long, but the odd non-eye-witness mention written a minimum of 37 years after his supposed death and references form the Bible and Talmud which are by definition circular in this respect do not come anywhere close to proving that the existence of Jesus is a “fact.”

What you have presented is certainly a body of scholarly work to support your opinion. I’ll give you that. But, they are not the kind of proof that renders your opinion fact.
[/quote]

I’ve presented more than that for your consideration. And the fact that you discount the actual accounts in the Christian Bible is frightening. Any other book from that period of time would be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. But, you hold so firmly to your atheism that you look the other way when facts are presented. When notable things happen they are sometimes placed in a book. Jesus Christ is not only written about by secular scholars, but also in the Bible, first hand accounts. There were many who wrote of their walk with Jesus. Did Peter live? Did James exist? Who were these men and women? Why would they make up their account of following Jesus Chrsit? What was in it for them? Early and ugly deaths? I could go on and on about the many first hand accounts from those who walked with Jesus Christ, but I don’t see it helping. You have a set way of thinking, as do I, and neither will change the others mind. At least you read it, for that I give you credit.

Take care,

Zeb

663

[quote]kamui wrote:

I’ll agree with you on the first statement with the caveat that this does not count as proof.

I’ll disagree with the second part inasmuch as there is a good argument to be made that the mythology of Jesus was an amalgamation of central figures in blood cults of the same period that was thrust upon one of any number of local mystical leaders who may or may not have even been named Jesus.

If I remember correctly, this was one of the central points of the short documentary The God Who Wasn’t There … which is why I posted it here for Zeb. Judging by his reaction to it, though, I may have it confused with something else… or Zeb is confused… hard to tell which is more likely.

664

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Well, hold on now, in my above comments I was talking about the existence of God. Not that Jesus Christ lived. Jesus is as much an historical figure as Plato. As you know Christians believe that he was the personification of God on earth. That can be debated by non-Christians, but his existence, that’s a fact!
[/quote]

I’m sorry, Zeb. You can curse me as the day as long, but the odd non-eye-witness mention written a minimum of 37 years after his supposed death and references form the Bible and Talmud which are by definition circular in this respect do not come anywhere close to proving that the existence of Jesus is a “fact.”

What you have presented is certainly a body of scholarly work to support your opinion. I’ll give you that. But, they are not the kind of proof that renders your opinion fact.
[/quote]

I’ve presented more than that for your consideration. And the fact that you discount the actual accounts in the Christian Bible is frightening. Any other book from that period of time would be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. But, you hold so firmly to your atheism that you look the other way when facts are presented. When notable things happen they are sometimes placed in a book. Jesus Christ is not only written about by secular scholars, but also in the Bible, first hand accounts. There were many who wrote of their walk with Jesus. Did Peter live? Did James exist? Who were these men and women? Why would they make up their account of following Jesus Chrsit? What was in it for them? Early and ugly deaths? I could go on and on about the many first hand accounts from those who walked with Jesus Christ, but I don’t see it helping. You have a set way of thinking, as do I, and neither will change the others mind. At least you read it, for that I give you credit.

Take care,

Zeb
[/quote]

This is absurd… seriously. In the modern study of history, there are vigorous and contentious debates about the facts of events that happened less than 5 years ago, with all manner of supporting evidence; first-hand accounts, video, audio, corroboration, etc…

Yet, you find me unreasonable for questioning the veracity of a book that makes claims as outlandish as the creative works of a fantasy author… a book that is thousands of years old with minimal corroboration at best??? Now, some of the more notable historical events, epochs, etc… referenced in the Bible can certainly date it, but they are not proof that its contents are truthful.

The ONLY place that the life of Jesus is written about in any biographical detail, from that time, is the Bible. This is why I discount accounts from it as circular. You might as well claim that Azlan is real, because Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy all saw him and talked to him.

665

Incidentally, to Zeb and all;

Don’t bother characterizing me as someone who has a level of hate for Christianity. I’ll go ahead and put it out there that I do. I hold a high degree of disdain for all mythology, mysticism, religion, etc… I am very open about this. Tolerance of the idea of religion is amazingly counterproductive in my opinion.

This does not mean that I hold any specific grudge against people who follow these ideas, though I apply my dislike where their actions warrant it.

666

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Incidentally, to Zeb and all;

Don’t bother characterizing me as someone who has a level of hate for Christianity. I’ll go ahead and put it out there that I do. I hold a high degree of disdain for all mythology, mysticism, religion, etc… I am very open about this. Tolerance of the idea of religion is amazingly counterproductive in my opinion.

This does not mean that I hold any specific grudge against people who follow these ideas, though I apply my dislike where their actions warrant it. [/quote]

At what point do you feel it might be worth exterminating Christians? I figure that with all the hate it would just be a matter of time if your kind were in charge. By the way that’s how the story develops according to the Bible. You should really read that part you’d like it a lot I’m sure.

667

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Or why massive amounts of people would follow someone who never existed.[/quote]

You cannot possibly be this retarded.

668

[quote]ZEB wrote:
At what point do you feel it might be worth exterminating Christians? I figure that with all the hate it would just be a matter of time if your kind were in charge. By the way that’s how the story develops according to the Bible. You should really read that part you’d like it a lot I’m sure.[/quote]

I was wrong. You are retarded.

669

I always take history with a pinch of salt, the older it is the more salt I pinch. After all history is written by the victors.

But to base your entire life around some history thats 2000 years old really must take some ‘faith’

670

[quote]Rza UK wrote:
I always take history with a pinch of salt, the older it is the more salt I pinch. After all history is written by the victors.

But to base your entire life around some history thats 2000 years old really must take some ‘faith’[/quote]

I can’t understand why people are comfortable in being content with “faith.” Religious faith basically requires a suspension of disbelief. The problem is that once this suspension is achieved then there is nothing to recommend catholicism over protestantism, or christianity over islam because evidence has largely been taken out of the equation.

If you believe in a divine jesus, you may as well believe in prophetic diction to muhammad … or any guy in some backstreet of New York claiming to be a messiah.

671

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
This is absurd… seriously. In the modern study of history, there are vigorous and contentious debates about the facts of events that happened less than 5 years ago, with all manner of supporting evidence; first-hand accounts, video, audio, corroboration, etc…[/quote]

I trust that you have the same misgivings about other historical events. Did the Roman wars happen? Did the battle of Thermopylae occur in 480 BC? I wonder why the ancient writers and historians even bothered to record things? It all happened so long ago…or maybe none of it happened right? There were no TV camera’s so who knows right? LOL! Did the Alamo happen? There are many different accounts of what happened to Davey Crocket let’s discount the entire story, must be a lie by the Mexicans. You must walk around not sure of any history from what I can tell. If it didn’t happen in front of you then really there is no proof. Tough way to live man. You must be quite the history buff LOL.

Jesus Christ is written about by many writers of that era. However, it is in detail in the Bible. And what’s wrong with that? Instead of attack why the New Testament is wrong you attack the entire book as if they’ve created it out of thin air. Seriously, what parts of it are wrong? Where are they lying? Any other book from that period of time would be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. But you allow your beliefs to cloud your judgement.

672

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Or why massive amounts of people would follow someone who never existed.[/quote]

You cannot possibly be this retarded.[/quote]

You are right, most people live their lives following a myth and then die painful deaths because they refuse to recant what they’ve seen.

Who is the retard here?

673

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
This is absurd… seriously. In the modern study of history, there are vigorous and contentious debates about the facts of events that happened less than 5 years ago, with all manner of supporting evidence; first-hand accounts, video, audio, corroboration, etc…[/quote]

I trust that you have the same misgivings about other historical events. Did the Roman wars happen? Did the battle of Thermopylae occur in 480 BC? I wonder why the ancient writers and historians even bothered to record things? It all happened so long ago…or maybe none of it happened right? There were no TV camera’s so who knows right? LOL! Did the Alamo happen? There are many different accounts of what happened to Davey Crocket let’s discount the entire story, must be a lie by the Mexicans. You must walk around not sure of any history from what I can tell. If it didn’t happen in front of you then really there is no proof. Tough way to live man. You must be quite the history buff LOL.

Jesus Christ is written about by many writers of that era. However, it is in detail in the Bible. And what’s wrong with that? Instead of attack why the New Testament is wrong you attack the entire book as if they’ve created it out of thin air. Seriously, what parts of it are wrong? Where are they lying? Any other book from that period of time would be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. But you allow your beliefs to cloud your judgement.[/quote]

^^^^^^

Cortes, what was that you were saying about criminal abuse of logical fallacies?

674

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
At what point do you feel it might be worth exterminating Christians? I figure that with all the hate it would just be a matter of time if your kind were in charge. By the way that’s how the story develops according to the Bible. You should really read that part you’d like it a lot I’m sure.[/quote]

I was wrong. You are retarded.[/quote]

Are you as excited as I think you are today? Just think you have a whole new day of creating cartoons and insulting people on the Internet.

(ruffles hair and pats head) Good boy…good for you! You’re a big boy.

675

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I trust that you have the same misgivings about other historical events. Did the Roman wars happen? Did the battle of Thermopylae occur in 480 BC? I wonder why the ancient writers and historians even bothered to record things? It all happened so long ago…or maybe none of it happened right? There were no TV camera’s so who knows right? [/quote]

There is a shit-ton more evidence for the existence of the Roman wars than for the existence of Jesus. Thank you for proving my point.

As I mentioned before in this thread, I’m not much of a student of history, but I do have the general understanding that veracity in this field is partly supported by quantities of volumes of evidence.

[quote] LOL! Did the Alamo happen? There are many different accounts of what happened to Davey Crocket let’s discount the entire story, must be a lie by the Mexicans.

You must walk around not sure of any history from what I can tell. If it didn’t happen in front of you then really there is no proof. Tough way to live man. You must be quite the history buff LOL.
[/quote]

Does it make you feel better to imagine me as being this stupid?

676

An aside to Cortes:

For an argument to be an Ad Hominem attack requires that it attempts to link the validity of an opponents argument with a perceived character flaw of theirs.

I am confident that I have not done this, though I am open to being proven wrong.

677

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I trust that you have the same misgivings about other historical events. Did the Roman wars happen? Did the battle of Thermopylae occur in 480 BC? I wonder why the ancient writers and historians even bothered to record things? It all happened so long ago…or maybe none of it happened right? There were no TV camera’s so who knows right?

There is a shit-ton more evidence for the existence of the Roman wars than for the existence of Jesus. Thank you for proving my point.[/quote]

You’ve proven nothing, my point is that unless you are there you cannot be sure. You said it yourself even with TV camera’s things can be questioned.

[quote]As I mentioned before in this thread, I’m not much of a student of history, but I do have the general understanding that veracity in this field is partly supported by quantities of volumes of evidence.

LOL! Did the Alamo happen? There are many different accounts of what happened to Davey Crocket let’s discount the entire story, must be a lie by the Mexicans.

You must walk around not sure of any history from what I can tell. If it didn’t happen in front of you then really there is no proof. Tough way to live man. You must be quite the history buff LOL.

Does it make you feel better to imagine me as being this stupid?[/quote]

I don’t imagine such a thing, and don’t believe it. I just think that you’ve been corrupted to the point that you refuse to believe whatever evidence is out there. Keep in mind that you are in a tiny minority with this weird belief. This transcends religion keep in mind. You are now trying to rewrite history. Does this somehow back-up your atheism a little better?

I gave you a long list of Roman historians and writers who spoke freely of Jesus Christ, and you say he didn’t exist. I just find that very odd.

For example Tacitus was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan. His famous work, “Annals”, was a history of Rome. A very respect citizen of the time.

Tacitus (not unlike some around here) hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” You might call him an atheist. But even he admitted that Jesus Christ existed.

And he, as I said, is only one of a long list of non-Christians who despised Christ and what he stood for, but never denied that he existed.

No I don’t think that you’re stupid, I just think that you are hell bent (pardon the pun) on digging your heels in on this subject as you feel that it somehow bolsters your atheist position. I call it being stubborn.

678

Let me clear something up for you, Zeb.

You said that the existence of Jesus was a “fact.”

The burden of proof is now yours.

I’m offering that it is far from established fact and that maintaining that it is requires that you lower the bar of evidence typically applied to the study of history.

You have accused me of being “corrupted,” “attempting to rewrite history,” and in holding “weird beliefs.”

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate.

679

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

You are trying ro raise the bar of evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ. Other historical characters of that time, or even before that time are not questioned to have lived and have far less evidence to prove their existence. This is just another way (not begun by you) to move further from God. After all if Chirst never existed then there can be no Christianity. I get it, I get it.

I’ve already posted all that I’m going to on this topic. As I’ve said many times a message board is a poor place to discuss these things, too much posturing. And then you have the hate filled bottom feeders like Makavali who bring any discussion of such things to its very lowest element.

Here is a book that you should read which may at least change your mind regarding the fact that Jesus Christ is an historical figure:

“The Case For The Real Jesus” By Lee Strobel

If you care enough to really take some time to investigate the possibility that Jesus Christ existed this is an excellent starting point.

Thanks for the conversation and all the best to you,

Zeb

680

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

I recommend that you explain to me either:

  1. Why the bar of evidence should be lowered so much in this particular instance.

or

  1. How the bar of evidence is not being lowered.

On reflection, I find that Kamui’s point that arguing the veracity of whether or not Jesus existed is probably counterproductive to the overall discussion to hold a lot of merit. I guess I just have a sore spot for a level playing field in debate. [/quote]

You are trying ro raise the bar of evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus Christ. Other historical characters of that time, or even before that time are not questioned to have lived and have far less evidence to prove their existence. This is just another way (not begun by you) to move further from God. After all if Chirst never existed then there can be no Christianity. I get it, I get it.

I’ve already posted all that I’m going to on this topic. As I’ve said many times a message board is a poor place to discuss these things, too much posturing. And then you have the hate filled bottom feeders like Makavali who bring any discussion of such things to its very lowest element.

Here is a book that you should read which may at least change your mind regarding the fact that Jesus Christ is an historical figure:

“The Case For The Real Jesus” By Lee Strobel

If you care enough to really take some time to investigate the possibility that Jesus Christ existed this is an excellent starting point.

Thanks for the conversation and all the best to you,

Zeb
[/quote]

I think that you should raise the bar for the existence of Jesus, after all it is going to impact your life in a big way. Tutankhamun probably existed but if I were then to base my life around him I would need a lot more evidence.