why do you believe in God or...

Ahnimus

brainofPJ wrote:

you don't believe in God, i get it.

and God isn't omnipresent but what do you care, you don't believe he exists.

He isn't?

deadnothingbetter

soulsinging wrote:

i don't think it is and you haven't given me a single logical reason for why it is. but suit yourself.

you're silly. isn't it evidence enough... that if the person were to chase you down and you'd be running for your life your expressions would be attributed to fear, just like any other normal person on the face of the planet who claimed to be terrified when they were held at gun point? i was watching Dallas S.W.A.T. on A&E the other day... they were chasing a guy who held a woman at gunpoint... they spoke to the woman and guess what her words were.... "get me out of here. i'm really scared. i don't want to die." you don't think there's logical reason to show it's a natural reaction? i would deem that if a had a survival instinct than it's natural for me to feel fear.... otherwise what is it that's going to tell my brain, "ok, you need to get out of here. you need to survive."

get the picture? i dunno... if that's not logical reason enough than i guess you can suit yourself too.

deadnothingbetter

hippiemom wrote:

I think your problem in this thread is that you're playing pretty fast and loose with the language. Most people have a pretty clear and definite meaning of the word "fear," whereas you seem to be willing to let it mean many things. Taking away enjoyment is not the same as fear.

Being stuck in this bedroom, if someone took away my laptop and my satellite radio, that would take away much of my enjoyment of life, but it wouldn't scare me.

no... i think my problem is that i use too much common sense. it's not fairly practiced on these boards. i'm not including you though.

Ahnimus

deadnothingbetter wrote:

no... i think my problem is that i use too much common sense. it's not fairly practiced on these boards. i'm not including you though.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Albert Einstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Ahnimus

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality--to name just a few--have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense. Similarly, common sense has been invoked in opposition to many scientific and technological advancements. Such misuse of the notion of common sense is fallacious, being a form of the argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses) fallacy.

my2hands

JD Sal wrote:

How is this a fact and undisputable? No one has ever found the physical remains of Jesus, so it can certainly be contested that he existed.

of course Jesus existed

deadnothingbetter

Ahnimus wrote:

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality--to name just a few--have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense. Similarly, common sense has been invoked in opposition to many scientific and technological advancements. Such misuse of the notion of common sense is fallacious, being a form of the argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses) fallacy.

nevermind.... i'll use practicality instead. i'm trying to be practical, sensible or rational... whichever you'd like. i thought common sense meant the same thing. but whatever.

my2hands

brainofPJ wrote:

you don't believe in God, i get it.

you don't believe he exists.

so god is a male?

gue_barium

my2hands wrote:

so god is a male?

hahahaahahah

i love these threads.


i used to hate them, but they never dull in entertainment value, truly.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Common sense is sometimes regarded as an impediment to abstract and even logical thinking. This is especially the case in mathematics and physics, where human intuition often conflicts with probably correct or experimentally verified results. A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Common sense is sometimes appealed to in political debates, particularly when other arguments have been exhausted. Civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality--to name just a few--have all been attacked as being contrary to common sense. Similarly, common sense has been invoked in opposition to many scientific and technological advancements. Such misuse of the notion of common sense is fallacious, being a form of the argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses) fallacy.

I'd say you've got a bullet-proof common sense case there.

cornnifer

Ahnimus wrote:

Three examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Martin_%28philosopher%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.M._Robertson

And D Murdoc a.k.a Acharya S

Acharya is classically educated in archaeology, history, mythology, and languages. Her formal training includes a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin and Marshall College. She also attended the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in Greece.

Acharya is a fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, a division of the Council for Secular Humanism.

While preserving her privacy, Acharya has been interviewed on a variety of radio stations. In an interview she said she came from a moderate Christian background. Though not traumatic or "Fundamentalist", she described it as "boring" and said she ceased attending church regularly at age 12.

Acharya's inspiration for exploring the Jesus myth theory was reportedly Joseph Wheless's book Forgery in Christianity. She then read other works, such as Kersey Graves' The World's 16 Crucified Saviours, as well as Barbara Walker's The Woman's Encyclopaedia of Myth and Secrets.

O.k. here's the thing. i took a few moments to do some quick research on the individuals you list here. Michael Martin is, first of all, a philosopher by trade, not an historian. He is a fiery atheist and, skimming some of his essays, i found the bulk of them to be attacks on theism in general, not against the actual existence of Jesus. i dug a little further and found that while yes he did question the actual existence of Jesus, his argument was more of a philosophical one than an historical one (and i might add a relatively weak one at that). It sounds to me like he basically argues that since, in his easily refutable opinion, much of the accuracy of the New testament accounts of the life Jesus are questionable, his very existence is also questionable. That's a real leap.
Robertson is a journalist by trade, also not an historian, and his argument is basically the same. In fact the basic argument of the entire Jesus myth theory (the few fringe proponets there are of this theory) is pretty much reliant upon this line of thinking. "The gospel accounts and the bold claims made by Christians about the NATURE of Jesus are borrowed from other stories, so the man called Jesus never really existed at all." Ummm... o.k. The point i made earlier is that no real REPUTABLE, SCHOLARLY, HISTORIANS lend credibility to the assumption that the man, Jesus didn't really even exist. None of the individuals you cite really fall into that category, so my point stands.
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm Give this a quick examination.
One quote from the article:
"Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic. And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels."

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

O.k. here's the thing. i took a few moments to do some quick research on the individuals you list here. Michael Martin is, first of all, a philosopher by trade, not an historian. He is a fiery atheist and, skimming some of his essays, i found the bulk of them to be attacks on theism in general, not against the actual existence of Jesus. i dug a little further and found that while yes he did question the actual existence of Jesus, his argument was more of a philosophical one than an historical one (and i might add a relatively weak one at that). It sounds to me like he basically argues that since, in his easily refutable opinion, much of the accuracy of the New testament accounts of the life Jesus are questionable, his very existence is also questionable. That's a real leap.
Robertson is a journalist by trade, also not an historian, and his argument is basically the same. In fact the basic argument of the entire Jesus myth theory (the few fringe proponets there are of this theory) is pretty much reliant upon this line of thinking. "The gospel accounts and the bold claims made by Christians about the NATURE of Jesus are borrowed from other stories, so the man called Jesus never really existed at all." Ummm... o.k. The point i made earlier is that no real REPUTABLE, SCHOLARLY, HISTORIANS lend credibility to the assumption that the man, Jesus didn't really even exist. None of the individuals you cite really fall into that category, so my point stands.
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm Give this a quick examination.
One quote from the article:
"Professor Marshall was correct that neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic. And even GA Wells himself has now conceded that a real figure called Jesus lay behind some of the teaching contained in the synoptic Gospels."

So, you used one of my examples, the easiest one to dispute. This is what is known as a straw man argument. It sounds like you are saying that his opinion is bias because he is an atheist, and not an atheist because of his opinion of history. Meanwhile Christian apologetics are 90% Christians, so by that logic their opinions are worthless as well.

The historicity is questionable because the Biblical account is basically the only account of Jesus' life. Being that Jesus was purportedly a Jew, the Jewish historians should have some record of him. In-fact they do, but only two historians of many and they call him Jeshu Ben Pandera, the biological son of Mary's neighbour Ben Pandera. And one Greek historian in 178 C.E, Celsus makes the same claim. So, by the only non-Christian account, Jesus did exist but was not the son of God, was not born of a Virgin, but rather was an average blasphemer born out of wedlock, a bastard.

The characteristics of the biblical Jesus are very similar to other mythical characters, which does make his existence more questionable. It's possible a man named Jesus did exist, but was only a fraud and shared none of the characteristics ascribed to him in the Bible. In that vein, the biblical Jesus never existed.

Anyway, the historicity of Jesus is in question. But the majority of westerners are Christians and therefor would side with an opinion that Jesus really did exist. These are merely beliefs, since no evidence of Jesus' existence has ever been found.

libragirl

Ahnimus wrote:

So, you believe human wills are acausal?

I guess so. I don't think God is somekind of puppetmaster. But who really knows...I guess I'll find out when I die.

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

The historicity is questionable because the Biblical account is basically the only account of Jesus' life. Being that Jesus was purportedly a Jew, the Jewish historians should have some record of him. In-fact they do, but only two historians of many and they call him Jeshu Ben Pandera, the biological son of Mary's neighbour Ben Pandera. And one Greek historian in 178 C.E, Celsus makes the same claim. So, by the only non-Christian account, Jesus did exist but was not the son of God, was not born of a Virgin, but rather was an average blasphemer born out of wedlock, a bastard.

The characteristics of the biblical Jesus are very similar to other mythical characters, which does make his existence more questionable. It's possible a man named Jesus did exist, but was only a fraud and shared none of the characteristics ascribed to him in the Bible. In that vein, the biblical Jesus never existed.

well duh. of course there would be no historical account of that which cannot possibly happen. but i do think historically jesus existed and stirred up some shit in the jewish community before being executed. i think it's inaccurate to say jesus never existed. the biblical characterization of him clearly has no historical basis. but i think it's well settled that a man named jesus was kickin round the desert fuckin with the people's heads in those days.

Ahnimus

The Controversy
Despite all of this literature continuously being cranked out and the significance of the issue, in the public at large there is a serious lack of formal and broad education regarding religion and mythology, and most individuals are highly uninformed in this area. Concerning the issue of Christianity, for example, the majority of people are taught in most schools and churches that Jesus Christ was an actual historical figure and that the only controversy regarding him is that some people accept him as the Son of God and the Messiah, while others do not. However, whereas this is the raging debate most evident in this field today, it is not the most important. Shocking as it may seem to the general populace, the most enduring and profound controversy in this subject is whether or not a person named Jesus Christ ever really existed.

Although this debate may not be evident from publications readily found in popular bookstores1, when one examines this issue closely, one will find a tremendous volume of literature that demonstrates, logically and intelligently, time and again that Jesus Christ is a mythological character along the same lines as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian or other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths rather than historical figures2. Delving deeply into this large body of work, one uncovers evidence that the Jesus character is based upon much older myths and heroes from around the globe. One discovers that this story is not, therefore, a historical representation of a Jewish rebel carpenter who had physical incarnation in the Levant 2,000 years ago. In other words, it has been demonstrated continually for centuries that this character, Jesus Christ, was invented and did not depict a real person who was either the "son of God" or was "evemeristically" made into a superhuman by enthusiastic followers3.

History and Positions of the Debate
This controversy has existed from the very beginning, and the writings of the "Church Fathers" themselves reveal that they were constantly forced by the pagan intelligentsia to defend what the non-Christians and other Christians ("heretics")4 alike saw as a preposterous and fabricated yarn with absolutely no evidence of it ever having taken place in history. As Rev. Robert Taylor says, "And from the apostolic age downwards, in a never interrupted succession, but never so strongly and emphatically as in the most primitive times, was the existence of Christ as a man most strenuously denied."5 Emperor Julian, who, coming after the reign of the fanatical and murderous "good Christian" Constantine, returned rights to pagan worshippers, stated, "If anyone should wish to know the truth with respect to you Christians, he will find your impiety to be made up partly of the Jewish audacity, and partly of the indifference and confusion of the Gentiles, and that you have put together not the best, but the worst characteristics of them both."6 According to these learned dissenters, the New Testament could rightly be called, "Gospel Fictions."7

A century ago, mythicist Albert Churchward said, "The canonical gospels can be shown to be a collection of sayings from the Egyptian Mythos and Eschatology."8 In Forgery in Christianity, Joseph Wheless states, "The gospels are all priestly forgeries over a century after their pretended dates."9 Those who concocted some of the hundreds of "alternative" gospels and epistles that were being kicked about during the first several centuries C.E. have even admitted that they had forged the documents.10 Forgery during the first centuries of the Church's existence was admittedly rampant, so common in fact that a new phrase was coined to describe it: "pious fraud."11 Such prevarication is confessed to repeatedly in the Catholic Encyclopedia.12 Some of the "great" church fathers, such as Eusebius13, were determined by their own peers to be unbelievable liars who regularly wrote their own fictions of what "the Lord" said and did during "his" alleged sojourn upon the earth.14

The Proof
The assertion that Jesus Christ is a myth can be proved not only through the works of dissenters and "pagans" who knew the truth - and who were viciously refuted or murdered for their battle against the Christian priests and "Church Fathers" fooling the masses with their fictions - but also through the very statements of the Christians themselves, who continuously disclose that they knew Jesus Christ was a myth founded upon more ancient deities located throughout the known ancient world. In fact, Pope Leo X, privy to the truth because of his high rank, made this curious declaration, "What profit has not that fable of Christ brought us!"15 (Emphasis added.) As Wheless says, "The proofs of my indictment are marvellously easy."

Acharya S (Historian)

catefrances

as an atheist i believe a person named jesus christ, or who was labelled jesus christ, existed. i have never had any reason not to believe he existed. and i have never doubted this existence. like soulsinging i believe he got on the wrong side of his society and was crucified for his oppositional views against the establishment. ryan, surely must recognise that many many myths have a basis, no matter how scant, in reality. why would you think this one was any different?

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

as an atheist i believe a person named jesus christ, or who was labelled jesus christ, existed. i have never had any reason not to believe he existed. and i have never doubted this existence. like soulsinging i believe he got on the wrong side of his society and was crucified for his oppositional views against the establishment. ryan, surely must recognise that many many myths have a basis, no matter how scant, in reality. why would you think this one was any different?

Um, what myths? You think Krishna or Brahman were based on real characters? The evil dark lord of sumer Ba'al was a real man? The tooth fairy? Easter Bunny? Tony the Tiger? Snuffalufagus?

Ahnimus

The question "Why is jesus different?" should be applied to historicity. Why is the Christ character based on a real man but Zeus, Aplecius, Achiles, Aphrodite, Apollo, etc.. etc... were not? No one claims Zeus was based on anything but myth. Most mythical characters are not based on real figures.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

Um, what myths? You think Krishna or Brahman were based on real characters? The evil dark lord of sumer Ba'al was a real man? The tooth fairy? Easter Bunny? Tony the Tiger? Snuffalufagus?

how are tony the tiger and snuffalupagus myths? :rolleyes:

what i am talking about is 'primitive' societies, whose myths are born of a real incident or circumstance who then manufacture a story to explain the unexplainable because they didnt have the nouse to explain such a thing with verifiable intelligence.

do you also doubt the existence of siddartha gautama? or just the fact that when he was born he took his first steps immediately and on lotus flowers? would you be more likely to attribute the welling of a spring to supernatural forces such as him just simply striking the ground or can you see your way clear to realise that the water spring was already there and the myth was constructed to fit a natural phenomenon. and was done so in order to add divinity to a figurehead.


and how about mermaids and dragons and unicorns? i am well aware these do not exist but there was a basis to their being identified.

do you think it possible that an historical figure existed, who over time was morphed into the 'myth' of king arthur.

this is what i am talking about. not your ridiculous examples.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

how are tony the tiger and snuffalupagus myths? :rolleyes:

what i am talking about is 'primitive' societies, whose myths are born of a real incident or circumstance who then manufacture a story to explain the unexplainable because they didnt have the nouse to explain such a thing with verifiable intelligence.

do you also doubt the existence of siddartha gautama? or just the fact that when he was born he took his first steps immediately and on lotus flowers? would you be more likely to attribute the welling of a spring to supernatural forces such as him just simply striking the ground or can you see your way clear to realise that the water spring was already there and the myth was constructed to fit a natural phenomenon. and was done so in order to add divinity to a figurehead.


and how about mermaids and dragons and unicorns? i am well aware these do not exist but there was a basis to their being identified.

do you think it possible that an historical figure existed, who over time was morphed into the 'myth' of king arthur.

this is what i am talking about. not your ridiculous examples.

I'm more inclined to astrotheology. Most of the mythical characters are anthoropomorphisms of "the heavens". Christ being the sun.