[quote]lovehunter wrote:
Rah-Knee wrote:
PGA wrote:
Shit, I dont believe in god but I sure as hell believe Jesus walked this earth. Anybody that thinks otherwise its an idiot.
I never knew people actually believed Jesus didnt exist…
lol, prove that jesus existed without using the bible.
p.s. fuck you. idiot.
Let’s start with the insults.
[/quote]
kind of like the guy calling me an idiot because i doubt the existence of jesus?
[quote]huslinbriks wrote:
There is no evidence for Jesus’ existance outside of the Bible (if you consider that evidence, which I don’t)
Rah-Knee wrote:
lol, prove that jesus existed without using the bible.
p.s. fuck you. idiot.
[/quote]
Whether the existence or non-existence of anything can ever be “proven” to someone who has already made up his mind to the contrary notwithstanding, here are a few pieces of non-biblical evidence supporting the existence of a historical Jesus:
Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian. In his Antiquities of the Jews, he mentions the trial of James by the Sanhedrin. James was identified as the brother of Jesus in the New Testament, and indeed Josephus identifies him as such: “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”
Josephus also had this to say about Jesus in his Testimonium Flavianum: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man… When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him…And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.”
This passage was likely later doctored by a Christian writer, to include claims that Jesus was not merely a man, that he rose the third day, and that he was the Messiah, all of which Josephus probably did not believe, but it seems clear that he did not consider that the man himself had been fabricated.
In 64 AD, as you may know, a fire swept through Rome, and the emperor Nero, who was probably responsible for the blaze, was quick to blame Christian “terrorists”.
“Nero fastened the guilt on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.”
This from the historian Tacitus. “Christus”, of course, is Jesus, whom the Romans admit was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Here’s one more, from the 2nd-century Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata:
“The Christians worship a man to this day: the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
So there you have it. Three independent and secular accounts, none of them sympathetic to Jesus or the Christians, but at the same time all of them agreeing upon the existence of a man who was crucified by the Romans and later worshipped as a god.
I doubt if this will be enough to convince you, but you might check your facts before making absolute statements.
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong.
[quote]panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong. [/quote]
Is this really your argument? “You can’t ‘prove’ that anyone existed”?
There’s a sound and throroughly provable reason why people in this thread have called you an idiot.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?[/quote]
Oh, great, another “how can there be any morality without God?” argument.
<Sigh…>
The short answer is that it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans.
People pretty much had the idea that pointless killing was wrong long before a guy named Abraham allegedly made a pact with a blood-thirsty storm god.
The ironic thing is, according to the Bible, if the hypothetical classroom was full of children from another tribe (non-Israelite), murdering them would not only be not wrong, but a commandment from God himself (Numbers 31:17-18).
Oh, wait, except for the little virgin girls; you’d need to keep them alive as sex slaves. My bad.
I think the more tantamount question is “if God does exist and such things as murdering an entire classroom full of children are allowed to happen, is he an entity worthy of worship?”
[quote]panther2k wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?
I’m not an atheist but, if there is a God, explain to me how it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? Surely, you can’t claim to know the morales or beliefs of a being that far removed from our understanding.
[/quote]
I haven’t claimed anything. I asked a question. You answered with a question. My question is not meant to be rhetorical. I’m looking for an answer.
[quote]panther2k wrote:
I think it is fairly well-accepted that Jesus existed, but far be it from me to argue with someone otherwise. It’s impossible to “prove” anyone existed. If I say [historical figure A] never existed you can’t really prove I am wrong. [/quote]
Then by that logic, I defy you to prove conclusively that you exist, to the satisfaction of Harris. 
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Oh, great, another “how can there be any morality without God?” argument.
<Sigh…>
[/quote]
There’s no need to respond if it’s such a bother.
Then I guess the long answer is that it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans because it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans because it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans…
[quote]
People pretty much had the idea that pointless killing was wrong long before a guy named Abraham allegedly made a pact with a blood-thirsty storm god.
The ironic thing is, according to the Bible, if the hypothetical classroom was full of children from another tribe (non-Israelite), murdering them would not only be not wrong, but a commandment from God himself (Numbers 31:17-18).
Oh, wait, except for the little virgin girls; you’d need to keep them alive as sex slaves. My bad.
I think the more tantamount question is “if God does exist and such things as murdering an entire classroom full of children are allowed to happen, is he an entity worthy of worship?”[/quote]
I’m not a Christian so answering my question by contrasting with Christian theology means nothing to me. It’s not a Christian God vs. atheism question that I posed. I could care less about what you think about Christianity.
Got anything better than an “it’s wrong because it’s morally wrong” circular argument?
[quote]panther2k wrote:
gendou57 wrote:
Most people will agree that Jesus, at least A Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, did exist at sometime around the time of the biblical setting. We say this because there are historical records (the Bible is not a historical record, but more like an anthology of myths) reporting his existence.
-Gendou
Actually, the Bible is considered a historical record.[/quote]
maybe in the sense its an old book. its not a old book that is historically accurate.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Got anything better than an “it’s wrong because it’s morally wrong” circular argument?[/quote]
Well, I don’t know if it’s “better”, but the ethic of reciprocity seems applicable here. It appears throughout all major religions, in all cultures.
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Moses, Leviticus 19:18
“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” – Confucius, Analects
“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” – Buddha
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” – Hillel
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” – Jesus, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27; Matthew 7:12
“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” – Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” – Isaac Newton, Third Law of Motion
All right, I threw that last one in for fun. But the point is clear: we learn at a very early age that most actions have consequences. If we do not like these consequences, we call them “bad”. We refrain from harming others in order to avoid being harmed ourselves. The cynic might call this fearful self-interest, the moralist might call it morality, and the religious man might call it the Golden Rule, but the result, for the most part, is the same.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Digital Chainsaw wrote:
Oh, great, another “how can there be any morality without God?” argument.
<Sigh…>
There’s no need to respond if it’s such a bother.
The short answer is that it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans.
Then I guess the long answer is that it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans because it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans because it is wrong because we find it morally wrong as humans…
People pretty much had the idea that pointless killing was wrong long before a guy named Abraham allegedly made a pact with a blood-thirsty storm god.
The ironic thing is, according to the Bible, if the hypothetical classroom was full of children from another tribe (non-Israelite), murdering them would not only be not wrong, but a commandment from God himself (Numbers 31:17-18).
Oh, wait, except for the little virgin girls; you’d need to keep them alive as sex slaves. My bad.
I think the more tantamount question is “if God does exist and such things as murdering an entire classroom full of children are allowed to happen, is he an entity worthy of worship?”
I’m not a Christian so answering my question by contrasting with Christian theology means nothing to me.[/quote]
Could have fooled me. Why limit your inquiry to just atheists, then?
Really? How much less?
OK, I get it.
You want someone to summarize all of the thought processes of humans from pre-history onward, citing all reasons for why most every civilization independently concluded and passed down to future generations that killing other humans for no good reason with/without a god or gods involved (with some exceptions) is wrong. Good luck with that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Michael570 wrote:
Got anything better than an “it’s wrong because it’s morally wrong” circular argument?
Well, I don’t know if it’s “better”, but the ethic of reciprocity seems applicable here. It appears throughout all major religions, in all cultures.
“Love your neighbor as yourself.” – Moses, Leviticus 19:18
“What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” – Confucius, Analects
“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” – Buddha
“What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” – Hillel
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” – Jesus, Luke 6:31; Luke 10:27; Matthew 7:12
“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” – Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” – Isaac Newton, Third Law of Motion
All right, I threw that last one in for fun. But the point is clear: we learn at a very early age that most actions have consequences. If we do not like these consequences, we call them “bad”. We refrain from harming others in order to avoid being harmed ourselves. The cynic might call this fearful self-interest, the moralist might call it morality, and the religious man might call it the Golden Rule, but the result, for the most part, is the same.[/quote]
An excellent, well-thought out post, but I doubt it will satisfy our eager inquisitor.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
huslinbriks wrote:
There is no evidence for Jesus’ existance outside of the Bible (if you consider that evidence, which I don’t)
Rah-Knee wrote:
lol, prove that jesus existed without using the bible.
p.s. fuck you. idiot.
Whether the existence or non-existence of anything can ever be “proven” to someone who has already made up his mind to the contrary notwithstanding, here are a few pieces of non-biblical evidence supporting the existence of a historical Jesus:
Flavius Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian. In his Antiquities of the Jews, he mentions the trial of James by the Sanhedrin. James was identified as the brother of Jesus in the New Testament, and indeed Josephus identifies him as such: “the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ.”
Josephus also had this to say about Jesus in his Testimonium Flavianum: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man… When Pilate condemned him to be crucified, those who had come to love him did not give up their affection for him…And the tribe of Christians has not disappeared.”
This passage was likely later doctored by a Christian writer, to include claims that Jesus was not merely a man, that he rose the third day, and that he was the Messiah, all of which Josephus probably did not believe, but it seems clear that he did not consider that the man himself had been fabricated.
In 64 AD, as you may know, a fire swept through Rome, and the emperor Nero, who was probably responsible for the blaze, was quick to blame Christian “terrorists”.
“Nero fastened the guilt on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.”
This from the historian Tacitus. “Christus”, of course, is Jesus, whom the Romans admit was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius.
Here’s one more, from the 2nd-century Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata:
“The Christians worship a man to this day: the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”
So there you have it. Three independent and secular accounts, none of them sympathetic to Jesus or the Christians, but at the same time all of them agreeing upon the existence of a man who was crucified by the Romans and later worshipped as a god.
I doubt if this will be enough to convince you, but you might check your facts before making absolute statements.[/quote]
i suggest you check yours as well. all of the documents you have cited are suspected by serious historians as having been altered by early christians.
and there are historical documents that say north america was entirely populated by men with one giant leg, and that norse gods roamed the earth at one point in time. does that mean such things actually existed?
and as for the morality of massacreing a group of school children: morality is entirely subjective. how’s that for an answer.
damn guys, if i need training advice i’ll come back here but if i want serious discussion without being emotionally attacked, apparently i have to go elsewhere.
[quote]Digital Chainsaw wrote:
OK, I get it.
You want someone to summarize all of the thought processes of humans from pre-history onward, citing all reasons for why most every civilization independently concluded and passed down to future generations that killing other humans for no good reason with/without a god or gods involved (with some exceptions) is wrong. Good luck with that.
[/quote]
No, I already know the answer to that.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
All right, I threw that last one in for fun. But the point is clear: we learn at a very early age that most actions have consequences. If we do not like these consequences, we call them “bad”. We refrain from harming others in order to avoid being harmed ourselves. The cynic might call this fearful self-interest, the moralist might call it morality, and the religious man might call it the Golden Rule, but the result, for the most part, is the same.[/quote]
This is an explanation for human behavior. You have explained why most people will behave as if killing children is wrong but haven’t explained why it is wrong.
[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
and as for the morality of massacreing a group of school children: morality is entirely subjective. how’s that for an answer.
[/quote]
It’s an answer that would rationally follow from the belief system of an atheist. Thank you.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
This is an explanation for human behavior. You have explained why most people will behave as if killing children is wrong but haven’t explained why it is wrong.[/quote]
It was an explanation for how human behavior gives rise to ethical systems, which in turn attempt to influence human behavior. Call it circular logic if you like; it works for me.
I would argue that even in the total absence of religious commandments, societal taboos, moral proscriptions, or legal prohibitions against murder, a great majority of people would not kill a child, one because of fear of retribution by the child’s parents, and two because they would not wish the same fate to befall their own children.
There are accounts of Jesus and his sentencing of death in roman history, but i really dont want to discuss religion here, because i just dont see it ending well at all.
[quote]Rah-Knee wrote:
i suggest you check yours as well. all of the documents you have cited are suspected by serious historians as having been altered by early christians.[/quote]
I assume that, at least as far as the Tacitus text is concerned, the “serious historians” you are referring to are Gordon Stein, Georges Ory and John Wilson Ross, who suggested respectively that Tacitus’ work was altered, that he was referring to someone else named “Chrestus”, and that he never even wrote the Annals at all. If you are privy to other, more convincing arguments by other, more serious historians, by all means please share them with us.
I admitted myself that Josephus’ Testimonium text was controversial, and in fact I omitted the portions that were under dispute. However, his identification of James as Jesus’ brother in the Antiquities is generally accepted as authentic by most “serious historians”.
As for Lucian of Samosata, I was not aware that his work Passing of Peregrinus was believed by “serious historians” to have been altered by early Christians. Perhaps you can enlighten me on this topic.
Please cite these historical documents, as they sound like they would make for fascinating reading.
That is definitely an answer. No doubt about it.
Did I give you the impression that I was emotionally attacking you? It is a shortcoming of mine that I sometimes post my opinions without considering the emotional damage I may be inflicting, and if my words caused any irreparable trauma to your fragile psyche, then I offer you my most heartfelt apologies.
Of course, in future, if it is serious discussion you are after, then perhaps you would be better off excluding expressions like “p.s. fuck you, idiot” in your posts. Just a suggestion.
[quote]Michael570 wrote:
Hope this isn’t too much off topic but I have a question for the atheists. Assuming God (or any version of a non-physical “higher power”) does not exist, explain to me if it would be wrong to murder an entire classroom full of children? If so, then why?[/quote]
Empathy with other living, sentient beings, for starters.
Add to that two other factors, one biological and one cultural:
the nuturing instinct towards infants and children, which we see in other animal species as well, and
the learned idea of “fairness”.
Those three reasons would be enough for most people, even if they knew they could commit the murders without ever being caught.
Of course, there are always the pathological individuals who feel no empathy for others, and the people who persuade themselves that their victims “deserve it” for whatever reason. Because of such people, we set up laws and punishments as deterrents, and look out for each other.
[A bigger problem is when one entire group of people considers another group to be somehow less than human, for whatever reason (race, beliefs, perceived injustices, etc.) Of course you don’t have to be fair to those people! You don’t have to feel any empathy for them! Our laws were never meant to protect them! … then the whole classroom gets slaughtered, and perhaps there’s even a celebration afterwords.]
I don’t know if I’ve added anything useful to what Varqanir already posted, but that’s my quick answer to your question.