Atheism: What's the point?

[Dyakovo]

No, you don't understand. All the chaos of the Dark Ages and the like came because of the fall of Rome, it had nothing to do with Christians being in charge.

All of that chaos had to do with the burning of the library of Alexandria and the destruction of all available knowledge at the time. Care to guess who commanded the death of Hypatia and the destruction of the library? It sure wasn't Nero!

Yes, the Catholic Church was very corrupt at that time, and killed many. But you still can't blame any of that on Jesus.

You're right, but that's because we have no proof that he even existed.

[Cabra West]

Also, the last statement is highly inaccurate. Personal hygiene did not stem from the teachings of Jesus, nor did sanitation, electricity, the automobile, antibiotics, modern medicine, feminism... I could go on.

He never said that all that came from the teachings of Jesus. He just said it made life better.

Hmm, let's think what would've happened if Jesus never happened. Europe would remain pagan. The Barbarian tribes' religion would dominate. This paganism would spread to America, and so on, it would corrupt society. There would most likely be much violence.

*looks around the world*

You know, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there is a lot more violence than any Romans could ever have dreamt of in the world today...

[Gift-of-god]

....

You know that whole computer thing that you're using? It's entire construction and function is based on that "quantum physics crap." The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory is falsifiable, but only in extreme conditions, like perhaps some seen at the LHC. It is, however, supported by science that we do have incredible evidence for, it's called quantum field theory, and it is the most accurate physical theory ever formulated by man, so the existence of other universes is vastly more likely than your extremely specific claims about the inerrancy of the Bible, and the very existence of the many worlds interpretation shows conclusively that one need not postulate a god to explain the universe.

I thought that the many worlds interpretation was inherently unfalsifiable because there is absolutely no communication between these universes and ours.

[Ashmoria]

And seriously, isn't it common sense that Jesus was a real person? Could several different people's teachings that all agree have made such an impact on history? No, only a living person could do that. If Confucius wasn't real, and his followers just made him up, could they have such an impact just teaching about an imaginary man?

common sense, at best, suggests that "jesus" is a conglomeration of the teachings of any one of a number of radical jewish messianic preachers of the first century blended with the cool notions of soul/heaven/afterlife that were going around the hellenized world at that same time.

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

[Treznor]

And seriously, isn't it common sense that Jesus was a real person? Could several different people's teachings that all agree have made such an impact on history? No, only a living person could do that. If Confucius wasn't real, and his followers just made him up, could they have such an impact just teaching about an imaginary man?

common sense, at best, suggests that "jesus" is a conglomeration of the teachings of any one of a number of radical jewish messianic preachers of the first century blended with the cool notions of soul/heaven/afterlife that were going around the hellenized world at that same time.

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.

[Farnhamia Redux]

And seriously, isn't it common sense that Jesus was a real person? Could several different people's teachings that all agree have made such an impact on history? No, only a living person could do that. If Confucius wasn't real, and his followers just made him up, could they have such an impact just teaching about an imaginary man?

common sense, at best, suggests that "jesus" is a conglomeration of the teachings of any one of a number of radical jewish messianic preachers of the first century blended with the cool notions of soul/heaven/afterlife that were going around the hellenized world at that same time.

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.

Not to rain on your parade, but while there may have been records of Pilate's activity in Judaea, we don't have the records. You'd be quite amazed at what we don't have in terms of government records from those times. Pretty much, if it didn't get carved in stone or was written somewhere other than in Egypt, we don't have it. And even then, there's no guarantee that an inscription or a scrap of papyrus has survived to be discovered.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

....

You know that whole computer thing that you're using? It's entire construction and function is based on that "quantum physics crap." The many worlds interpretation of quantum theory is falsifiable, but only in extreme conditions, like perhaps some seen at the LHC. It is, however, supported by science that we do have incredible evidence for, it's called quantum field theory, and it is the most accurate physical theory ever formulated by man, so the existence of other universes is vastly more likely than your extremely specific claims about the inerrancy of the Bible, and the very existence of the many worlds interpretation shows conclusively that one need not postulate a god to explain the universe.

I thought that the many worlds interpretation was inherently unfalsifiable because there is absolutely no communication between these universes and ours.

Well, it might be falsifiable and there might be communication, but if one ever managed to successfully find out, they would most likely never be able to tell anyone about it. *nod*

[Kryozerkia]

im not sure if it was this thread or another but anyway, someone asked a "scientist" (in otherwords someone who likes the idea of evolution but wants a nice title) to prove the sky is blue, and they said something like this

"you want prove ok ask anyone to look up and ask another and another and they will all tell you the sky is blue"

early in the same thread another one of the "scientists" said that using numbers to prove something, is not prove at all..... well u could say its just as hypercritical as some religious fanatics.

anywho before you "scientists" tell me that i have used the same argument to prove that the Bible does not Contridict blah blah blah, well you see, religion isnt science so i dont need scientific prove, and realy i dont need any prove.

just thought i would share this with you scientists, have fun with you little Chemistry sets and all that.
night.

And you believe that statement straight out without asking for further explanation as to why? Because it is in the why that we find the answers. Simply looking up is one way, but it doesn't answer the why.

The sky is blue because the atmosphere of the earth acts like a prism, filtering out all colours except blue. The exception exists for those who are colour-blind. The sky is still blue but they see it differently because of the way their brain processes the information their visual receptors pick up.

That covers the proof and why.

Religion when asked to prove a god, goddess, whether singular or plural, asks for faith and belief, but its proof is lacking and the why isn't answered adequately. It seems to boil down to "because we say so", which for some isn't a good enough reason.

[Bassyruk]

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.[/quote]
Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

[Treznor]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

Why? Judaism was restricted to a tiny corner of the Empire, and Christianity was a minor cult. Plus, the Romans' policy was assimilate every new religion and culture it came into contact with. They even had a temple dedicated to "The Unknown God." They wouldn't want to eradicate Jesus, they would have wanted to make him part of their pantheon.

[Farnhamia Redux]

nothing in the new testament is in any way convincing of the existence of a particular person.

As a bonus, a lot of the stories told about Jesus were told before Jesus' time about Hercules, Mithras and other mythical figures. Once again, religion demonstrates its willingness to borrow whole cloth from competing religions to shore up interest.

What's most interesting is that the Romans kept meticulous records during that time period. They have records of Pontius Pilate and the crucifixions he ordered, but no mention of Jesus, Jeshua, Joshua or any other such individual from Nazereth whose punishment fit the description of the Biblical Jesus. So no, it really isn't common sense that Jesus ever existed. Just that someone was eager to create a figure like Jesus for religious purposes.

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

Roman religion did not work that way. The Romans didn't claim that they're religion was exclusive and that all other sects and cults and what-have-you were invalid. There are numerous instances of gods and goddesses being brought to Rome ceremoniously to be installed in temples. You could worship the hind-end of an ass for all the Roman authorities cared as long as you did not disturb the peace doing it. That's the important part. What brought on the persecutions in the 2nd and 3rd centuries was the Christian refusal to offer sacrifice to the State cult of the emperor. So, who's being exclusive?

[Enadail]

And seriously, isn't it common sense that Jesus was a real person? Could several different people's teachings that all agree have made such an impact on history? No, only a living person could do that. If Confucius wasn't real, and his followers just made him up, could they have such an impact just teaching about an imaginary man?

Except Confucius isn't the key part of Confucianism. The ideas are not centered around the man. So its largely unimportant if he's real. Without Jesus, Christianity falls apart. So its very important if he's real. There is no room for doubt. The fact that there is doubt is the problem. I for one am sure a man named Jesus lived at the time. I don't believe for a second he was anything more then a common Joe carpenter. There's no evidence of his mythical properties, even if there is evidence of his life.

All the Krishna stuff

Most of this is stuff I've known since childhood. So sources I donno... So unless my parents were trying to teach me Jesus while telling me Hinduism while I was Jain, the chances of ulterior motives are small.

Regardless, for baptized, the reason I quoted it is that Hinduism doesn't have baptism. But like baptism, a ceremony in the Ganges River is said to purify and clean the body of sin/karma. So... no, pretty damn close. If you already had the idea of baptism in your religion, you could see this as a crude baptism.

Regardless, if even 4-5 things match up, it seems a bit peculiar that a mythical figure has similar properties to a mythical figure from another religion. We're not talking about common people, we're talking about stories that define the religion, where any commonalities are suspect. And I did say "resembles", not "is exactly". Heck, we could find out centuries later, a man did all this stuff at the dawn of civilization, and then this story got passed and absorbed into subsequent religions. But I'll wager thats unlikely too.

[Luna Amore]

im not sure if it was this thread or another but anyway, someone asked a "scientist" (in otherwords someone who likes the idea of evolution but wants a nice title) to prove the sky is blue, and they said something like this

"you want prove ok ask anyone to look up and ask another and another and they will all tell you the sky is blue"

early in the same thread another one of the "scientists" said that using numbers to prove something, is not prove at all..... well u could say its just as hypercritical as some religious fanatics.

anywho before you "scientists" tell me that i have used the same argument to prove that the Bible does not Contridict blah blah blah, well you see, religion isnt science so i dont need scientific prove, and realy i dont need any prove.

just thought i would share this with you scientists, have fun with you little Chemistry sets and all that.
night.

That was one poster. Or are you suggesting we all voted to have him/her represent us?

And you keep going on about not needing proof, but yet stay in an debate thread feebly trying to prove. Why come in at all if you don't need proof?

Why the quotation marks around scientist? Trying to demonize a word? Because if you do have such a problem with science and its methods, you can kindly withdrawal from society and stop benefiting from it. Let's start with the computer you're typing on.

[Bassyruk]

Regardless, for baptized, the reason I quoted it is that Hinduism doesn't have baptism. But like baptism, a ceremony in the Ganges River is said to purify and clean the body of sin/karma. So... no, pretty damn close. If you already had the idea of baptism in your religion, you could see this as a crude baptism.

So since you also have a baptism-like thing in your religion, that means that Judeaism and Chritianity are copying you? Wow, that makes a lot of since, mostly because Israel at that time had so much contact with India.

[Grave_n_idle]

Dr Greenleaf assumed that all the accounts he was talking about was true. A particularly stupid move when we don't even know who wrote them.

Greenleaf's argument was actually a technical point of law. Writings are by definition "hearsay" (we do not have the author as a witness on the stand testifying from his personal knowledge and subject to cross-examination; rather we have the piece of writing saying, that the author said...) but several kinds of hearsay are nonetheless admissible evidence; one of these exceptions to the hearsay rule is of course for "official records", and Greenleaf argued that the New Testament counts as an official record since it has been in the custody of the Church, a legal body charged with keeping such records. This is a weak argument even on its own terms, since the Church was not a legal body back in the time of Jesus or for several generations thereafter; if we had court records from the Pilate administration, or whatever, that would be more like it, but of course we have nothing of the sort.

Right. We have hearsay, at best, but we don't even know who wrote it.

Greenleaf is a fraud.

[Enadail]

So since you also have a baptism-like thing in your religion, that means that Judeaism and Chritianity are copying you? Wow, that makes a lot of since, mostly because Israel at that time had so much contact with India.

It doesn't take a lot... it takes a small group, or even 1 person, sharing a story. But in reality, it takes one person in India telling someone just beyond India in modern Afghanistan, telling someone a little further east, etc etc till the story is somewhere else. Early Christianity spread by story spreading, not violence. Its unfortunate that only lasted about 100 years.

But no, I'm not saying Judaism and Christianity (can you not even spell the religions you're trying to argue for?) are copying. In fact, Judaism has nothing to do with this. I'm saying that the mythical features were around before him, and so for Christianity to soak them up and use them for their own purposes is sensible.

[Treznor]

So since you also have a baptism-like thing in your religion, that means that Judeaism and Chritianity are copying you? Wow, that makes a lot of since, mostly because Israel at that time had so much contact with India.

It doesn't take a lot... it takes a small group, or even 1 person, sharing a story. But in reality, it takes one person in India telling someone just beyond India in modern Afghanistan, telling someone a little further east, etc etc till the story is somewhere else. Early Christianity spread by story spreading, not violence. Its unfortunate that only lasted about 100 years.

But no, I'm not saying Judaism and Christianity (can you not even spell the religions you're trying to argue for?) are copying. In fact, Judaism has nothing to do with this. I'm saying that the mythical features were around before him, and so for Christianity to soak them up and use them for their own purposes is sensible.

Even though the Romans never successfully conquered Persia, they traded with them extensively. Five hundred years is more than enough time for the teachings of Buddha to reach the Middle East and get co-opted by a bunch of idealistic Jews.

[Grave_n_idle]

It is what it is: an account of the events from 50 years earlier and what people said about the alleged perpetrators.

No, it is CLAIMED as an account of events from 50 years earlier, and what people said about the alleged perpetrators.

We don't KNOW that, 50 years earlier, they were blaiming Christians - we just know that Tacitus - 50 years on - said that they were.

No, I would not write about WBC picketing the Kennedy funeral; that would be absurd, particularly when my audience would include a lot of people who had also been around since 1963.

In days of mass instantaneous media? Sure. But if you were writing for an audience with little knowledge or interest, about events that most of your audience would not be contemporaries for.... you could write whatever you wanted.

[Dimmakmmunication]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue? I don't see why people have to prove each other wrong considering it is not a factual based argument. It's all faith. I'd consider myself borderline agnostic from a catholic background but i don't argue with my background because some people realy do believe in it and enjoy believing in it

[Grave_n_idle]

And seriously, isn't it common sense that Jesus was a real person?

No. Have you actually studied ANY of the history of the time and place you're discussing?

Not only are we talking about a rich tapestry of gods, demigods, spirit creatures and other mythologies percolating in one enormous stew (and I'm pretty sure you're not arguing they are ALL 'real'), but we're also talking about a tradition that even faked the alleged AUTHORS of the works.

[Treznor]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue? I don't see why people have to prove each other wrong considering it is not a factual based argument. It's all faith. I'd consider myself borderline agnostic from a catholic background but i don't argue with my background because some people realy do believe in it and enjoy believing in it

Sure. When the Pope stops speaking on the morality of medical issues, the Religious Right stop attempting to introduce legislation to enforce their morality and the world stops engaging in religiously-motivated violence, I'll stop pointing out what a bad idea religion turned out to be.

[Grave_n_idle]

There are, to be sure, certain motifs that you find repeated in stories all over the world, but you don't get more matches comparing Jesus to Krishna or to Horus than you do comparing Cinderella to Hansel and Gretel.

You appreciate, of course, that many of the 'fairy stories' DO start from the same roots, and become different only because of the natural evolution of story-telling, and subsumption of local variants?

[Dimmakmmunication]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and neither are gonna have their minds changed by the other so it's pointless to argue? I don't see why people have to prove each other wrong considering it is not a factual based argument. It's all faith. I'd consider myself borderline agnostic from a catholic background but i don't argue with my background because some people realy do believe in it and enjoy believing in it

Sure. When the Pope stops speaking on the morality of medical issues, the Religious Right stop attempting to introduce legislation to enforce their morality and the world stops engaging in religiously-motivated violence, I'll stop pointing out what a bad idea religion turned out to be.

1)So he's not allowed to voice his own opinion?
2)The majority rules, which is the most fair, if the majority are religious,tough shit, move
3)Better it be religion than something as materialistic as land

(Not a religious person)

[Grave_n_idle]

Well, if you were a Roman that believed in the Roman pantheon, wouldn't it be common sense that you would want to erase every trace of Jesus you could?

No.

Pull out a history book and look at how the Romans approached religion. It's far more likely that Romans would have incorporated Christianity into their circle of belief, with perhaps communal places of worship, and perhaps personal shrines of devotion.

[Grave_n_idle]

Can we not just accept that athiests believe in atheism and theists believe in theism and...

No, because neither is true.