Does God Exist?

[Benuty]

Are we not our own gods?

We don't get our powers and sustenance from Faith, so no.

Then explain your immortality?

[Benuty]

I think a lot of people worship a different kind of god.

YUP

Can you prove the existence of 100 green clones of Benjamin Franklin?

[Arcturus Novus]

YUP

Can you prove the existence of 100 green clones of Benjamin Franklin?

Yes, they're called leprechauns.

[Benuty]

Can you prove the existence of 100 green clones of Benjamin Franklin?

Yes, they're called leprechauns.

The last one died thanks to Theodore Roosevelt hunting them down on his elephant.

[Arcturus Novus]

Yes, they're called leprechauns.

The last one died thanks to Theodore Roosevelt hunting them down on his elephant.

Thanks, Ted.

[Distruzio]

Argumentation.

Oh come on, you're not even trying. What arguments? From whom? On what basis?

The Church Fathers.

Before i was Christian, i thought i was atheist. I wasnt. I was misotheist. I never doubted the existence of God. I doubted His goodness. The Church Fathers convinced me how egotistical it was to assert my own sense of morality over both the Church and God. They taught me that i was looking for reasons to believe God was a dick. They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

[Risottia]

...They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

The problem is, why is the reasoning and logic of those men to be considered more valid than your own reasoning and logic? Did they give you any reason?

[Twilight Imperium]

...They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

The problem is, why is the reasoning and logic of those men to be considered more valid than your own reasoning and logic? Did they give you any reason?

This is my question, as well. Did you get an answer besides "don't question your betters"?

[Mostrov]

So for all of your claims of academic consensus do you have any citation? Or that Tacitus writing is 'falsified, exaggerated or propaganda'? Or indeed that it is mistranslated? I take it you are highly familiar with classical study and that most classical works which have been 'translated' are similar subject to bias from monks?

Presumably his writings on the Roman Emperors are similarly so? I take it that Nero, Augustus, Vespasian etc. are 'fictional' figures. Or that the writing was preserved in anything but copies of the original Latin.

You state something in direct contradiction to what I was responding too, that the original writing was reliable save for this particular passage.
My question was directed as to why that particular passage is seen as unreliable, given that the main person (Paul R. Eddy) who points towards the access of Tacitus of having governmental records as also holding the position that it was evidence of Christs existence.
This whole talk of 'academic consensus' seems to be quite selective.

My mistake, I did not read carefully enough. I thought your were talking about josephus, not tacitus.

Some of that still applies, and the time gap between the estimated original writing and the time in question is even larger for tacitus' annals. There are obvious alterations in the texts, like someone tried to use white-out on them, but they don't appear to be very significant in those cases.

The more important thing for tacitus is how small the actual reference is.
[/box]"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..."[/box]
That's it, and the word christus has been repeatedly verified to be defaced from the original, which was chrestiani. Definitely not enough to rest the case of a religion on.

Because of the relatively obscurity you would expect of a Jewish cult in the 1st Century? And the scorn that is quite evident from his perspective, it hardly seems a sympathetic entry - considering that it is spoken as an evil superstition.

Alterations to the text don't nessecarily prove much, unless it is systematic; after all it isn't as though there was the opportunity to correct mistakes easily with ink and velum.
In this case you refer to 'chrestians' as a mistake, although the same link you provide also provides multiple sources of it being used elsewhere to refer to early Christians. How does this prove later alteration? It certainly isn't beyond the possibility that Tacitus made a mistake, as do him the two terms sounded alike.
Similarly he wasn't especially interested in documenting their religion as can be seen by his surrounding passages, merely there relation to Romes history at the time.

All in all it seems a strange example for a monk to 'edit'.

I just find it bizarre to doubt the historicity of Christ; I do not find doubts of his divinity strange but most academics seem to agree each on his existence just as we can usually agree on the existence just we generally do of others we only have tenuous evidence; to ask a similar question do we doubt the existence of the Buddha? Despite the fact that there is even less evidence of his existence.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

My mistake, I did not read carefully enough. I thought your were talking about josephus, not tacitus.

Some of that still applies, and the time gap between the estimated original writing and the time in question is even larger for tacitus' annals. There are obvious alterations in the texts, like someone tried to use white-out on them, but they don't appear to be very significant in those cases.

The more important thing for tacitus is how small the actual reference is.

"... called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin ..."

That's it, and the word christus has been repeatedly verified to be defaced from the original, which was chrestiani. Definitely not enough to rest the case of a religion on.

Because of the relatively obscurity you would expect of a Jewish cult in the 1st Century? And the scorn that is quite evident from his perspective, it hardly seems a sympathetic entry - considering that it is spoken as an evil superstition.

Alterations to the text don't nessecarily prove much, unless it is systematic; after all it isn't as though there was the opportunity to correct mistakes easily with ink and velum.
In this case you refer to 'chrestians' as a mistake, although the same link you provide also provides multiple sources of it being used elsewhere to refer to early Christians. How does this prove later alteration? It certainly isn't beyond the possibility that Tacitus made a mistake, as do him the two terms sounded alike.
Similarly he wasn't especially interested in documenting their religion as can be seen by his surrounding passages, merely there relation to Romes history at the time.

All in all it seems a strange example for a monk to 'edit'.

I just find it bizarre to doubt the historicity of Christ; I do not find doubts of his divinity strange but most academics seem to agree each on his existence just as we can usually agree on the existence just we generally do of others we only have tenuous evidence; to ask a similar question do we doubt the existence of the Buddha? Despite the fact that there is even less evidence of his existence.

That sentence is too short to offer any validity at all to the claims of a historical jesus, that was my point.
The alteration could mean something more than just a mistake on his part.

In Phrygia a number of funerary stone inscriptions use the term Chrestians, with one stone inscription using both terms together, reading: "Chrestians for Christians"

Unless that is supposed to say christians for christians, the words do not have congruent meanings, just informally overlapping ones.

Yes, you should also seriously doubt the historicity of an actual buddha. There is also no contemporary or unbiased record of his existence, so you should reject the claim of his existence, just as you should do with jesus.

[WestRedMaple]

Oh come on, you're not even trying. What arguments? From whom? On what basis?

The Church Fathers.

Before i was Christian, i thought i was atheist. I wasnt. I was misotheist. I never doubted the existence of God. I doubted His goodness. The Church Fathers convinced me how egotistical it was to assert my own sense of morality over both the Church and God. They taught me that i was looking for reasons to believe God was a dick. They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

I think it would be very depressing to believe in the Christian God. An all-powerful sadist? That'd be pretty scary.

I would certainly never worship such a being, but if we ever get solid evidence, then I would believe. I'd bet many atheists feel similarly

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Church Fathers.

Before i was Christian, i thought i was atheist. I wasnt. I was misotheist. I never doubted the existence of God. I doubted His goodness. The Church Fathers convinced me how egotistical it was to assert my own sense of morality over both the Church and God. They taught me that i was looking for reasons to believe God was a dick. They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

I think it would be very depressing to believe in the Christian God. An all-powerful sadist? That'd be pretty scary.

I would certainly never worship such a being, but if we ever get solid evidence, then I would believe. I'd bet many atheists feel similarly

Pretty much, I would believe in said god at that point but I would not worship it.

[Benuty]

I think it would be very depressing to believe in the Christian God. An all-powerful sadist? That'd be pretty scary.

I would certainly never worship such a being, but if we ever get solid evidence, then I would believe. I'd bet many atheists feel similarly

Pretty much, I would believe in said god at that point but I would not worship it.

A sadist if one is uneducated of deitic evolution or dualism perhaps.

[WestRedMaple]

Pretty much, I would believe in said god at that point but I would not worship it.

A sadist if one is uneducated of deitic evolution or dualism perhaps.

Or if someone is educated in the meaning of the word sadist

[Benuty]

A sadist if one is uneducated of deitic evolution or dualism perhaps.

Or if someone is educated in the meaning of the word sadist

Perhaps if you read what I said, that isn't the case.

On top of it you seem to be implying monotheism is sadistic.

Both of what I proposed was not even purely monotheistic.

Only one of them evolved into monotheism.

[WestRedMaple]

Or if someone is educated in the meaning of the word sadist

Perhaps if you even understood what the hell I said.

Or for that matter read what I said.

On top of it you seem to be implying monotheism is sadistic.

Both of what I proposed was not even purely monotheistic.

Only one of them evolved into monotheism.

It appears you're the one who didn't read before responding. I made no mention at all of monotheism. Monotheism didn't actually have anything to do with my post.

[Southern Arkansas]

I believe in God.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

[Benuty]

Perhaps if you even understood what the hell I said.

Or for that matter read what I said.

On top of it you seem to be implying monotheism is sadistic.

Both of what I proposed was not even purely monotheistic.

Only one of them evolved into monotheism.

It appears you're the one who didn't read before responding. I made no mention at all of monotheism. Monotheism didn't actually have anything to do with my post.

Yet it does.

You talk of "The Christian God" thats in and of itself is incredibly "vague" monotheism yet a form of monotheism nonetheless.

[WestRedMaple]

It appears you're the one who didn't read before responding. I made no mention at all of monotheism. Monotheism didn't actually have anything to do with my post.

Yet it does.

You talk of "The Christian God" thats in and of itself is incredibly "vague" monotheism yet a form of monotheism nonetheless.

I did not, in fact, make any mention of monotheism. Maybe you should try reading what is posted rather than reading whatever you want into things

[Distruzio]

...They taught me that, in order to study the Bible, i should consider the reasoning and logic of the men who wrote it as more valid than my own preconceived notions of what it should mean.

The problem is, why is the reasoning and logic of those men to be considered more valid than your own reasoning and logic? Did they give you any reason?

Because they wrote it. I did not.

Their way of thinking was faithfully passed on through the Church. Or so i was successfully convinced.

[Benuty]

Yet it does.

You talk of "The Christian God" thats in and of itself is incredibly "vague" monotheism yet a form of monotheism nonetheless.

I did not, in fact, make any mention of monotheism. Maybe you should try reading what is posted rather than reading whatever you want into things

Nonsense.

You clearly stated, and I quote "All powerful Being" implying one being thus monotheism (a form of it). Especially adding that whole "all powerful sadist" tittery.

[Benuty]

The problem is, why is the reasoning and logic of those men to be considered more valid than your own reasoning and logic? Did they give you any reason?

Because they wrote it. I did not.

Their way of thinking was faithfully passed on through the Church. Or so i was successfully convinced.

Kind of seems like you are throwing analysis out the window.

Not a good idea at all.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

The problem is, why is the reasoning and logic of those men to be considered more valid than your own reasoning and logic? Did they give you any reason?

Because they wrote it. I did not.

Their way of thinking was faithfully passed on through the Church. Or so i was successfully convinced.

You are far too credulous. You were not convinced by evidence or argument, but by your indoctrination simply enforcing what they said without the usual requirement of thinking.

So, it's been a few pages since you asked what evidence we would accept from you, but you never responded to anyone as far as I know. I'll reiterate what I posted previously.

For me to have any idea of what evidence would convince me of a claim, I would have to know the claim. You haven't made a real one. State a claim without ambiguity, as formally and explicitly as possible and then critera for applicable and verifiable evidence could be constructed. If you don't do that, nothing else can happen.

[WestRedMaple]

I did not, in fact, make any mention of monotheism. Maybe you should try reading what is posted rather than reading whatever you want into things

Nonsense.

You clearly stated, and I quote "All powerful Being" implying one being thus monotheism (a form of it).

So you can quote me, but you're still struggling to understand what was said. Discussing a hypothetical being that figures into some people's monotheistic religious beliefs is not the same thing as trying to discuss monotheism.

Now, why don't you try responding to the actual point of posts if you're going to respond? Why try to divert it into an entirely different direction like that?

[Ykrovjnge Krjvwic]

I don't know if there is a god or not, I sometimes like to think so, but I have my doubts. I guess I'll find out in the end, huh? I identify as a spiritual agnostic, if "agnosticism" is even a thing. I respect people's beliefs, although I am fully against any form of religious extremism/fundamentalism. I don't know whether or not if there is a higher deity, so I won't make any assumptions... However, I'm not opposed to the idea of a benevolent-nicey-nice god. I was raised a non-church-attending-semi-Catholic-Lutheran... thing, so I still feel somewhat spiritual (or perhaps wistful, I can't tell) at times. I do like church architecture though.