why do you believe in God or...

Jeanie

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?

HEY!!!!

Snuffalufagus is REAL damn it!

I can see him every day on Sesame Street! Don't be casting aspersions on the reality of The Muppets. They exist!

catefrances

Jeanie wrote:

HEY!!!! : p

Snuggalagus is REAL damn it! : D

I can see him every day on Sesame Street! : ) Don't be casting aspersions on the reality of The Muppets. They exist! : D

i agree jeanie. so many times ive identified myself as a cookie monster.

cookies are not sometimes food. they are ALWAYS food.

you know ryan, admitting to the existence, or even the possibility of an historical jesus doesnt make you a believer or even a hypocrite.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

i agree jeanie. so many times ive identified myself as a cookie monster.

cookies are not sometimes food. they are ALWAYS food.

you know ryan, admitting to the existence, or even the possibility of an historical jesus doesnt make you a believer or even a hypocrite.

I'm not concerned about that. Certainly it's possible that a man named Jesus existed, probably lots of men named Jesus existed. But wether this Jesus existed or not isn't something I'm certain of.

cornnifer

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

Actually i adressed your... ahem... "historians". One is a philosopher, one is a journalist, none are actual scholarly historians and all are strictly fringe atheist extremists who are afforded absolutely dick in the way of credibility from true istorical scholars be they Christian, Jew or devout atheist. They all use the SAME argument so to adress one is to adress them all. i never volunteered myself into a debate over the palpability of Christian claims about the man Jesus, which is what your trying to turn this into. i'll not do that here any longer. My point was strictly adressing the dead argument that the man Jesus never even really existed. Actual historians have put that argument to bed. i sincerely, and respectfully, suggest, if you wish to maintain any respectability as a scholar, you do the same. Real historians don't even consider it worthy of their time to address the issue. Nor do i, any longer. Have fun.

Ahnimus

cornnifer wrote:

Actually i adressed your... ahem... "historians". One is a philosopher, one is a journalist, none are actual scholarly historians and all are strictly fringe atheist extremists who are afforded absolutely dick in the way of credibility from true istorical scholars be they Christian, Jew or devout atheist. They all use the SAME argument so to adress one is to adress them all. i never volunteered myself into a debate over the palpability of Christian claims about the man Jesus, which is what your trying to turn this into. i'll not do that here any longer. My point was strictly adressing the dead argument that the man Jesus never even really existed. Actual historians have put that argument to bed. i sincerely, and respectfully, suggest, if you wish to maintain any respectability as a scholar, you do the same. Real historians don't even consider it worthy of their time to address the issue. Nor do i, any longer. Have fun.

What a bunch of pompous shit.

Acharya S is the pen name of D. M. Murdock. A proponent of the Jesus myth hypothesis, she has authored two books and operates a website named "Truth be Known". Her contention is that all religion is founded in earlier myth and that the characters depicted in Christianity are the result of the plagiarizing of those myths to unify the Roman State. Her views are also believed to be inspiration for the controversial counterculture film "Zeitgeist the movie", which has a beginning chapter on religion entitled "The Greatest Story Ever Told".

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.

Acharya's inspiration for exploring the Jesus myth theory was reportedly Joseph Wheless's book Forgery in Christianity.

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

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, and tyranny of the majority, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".

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

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not concerned about that. Certainly it's possible that a man named Jesus existed, probably lots of men named Jesus existed. But wether this Jesus existed or not isn't something I'm certain of.

so you admit his existence is a possibility?

FinsburyParkCarrots

God for me is the order in the chaos of a Mandelbrot, the determination of beauty in the most ferocious, seemingly indeterminable nature, and the belief that sooner or later, any organ that is internally wired will receive waves from a distant power, and, should it rise to the occasion, broadcast it further to greater amplification.


And yes, I have heard of LSD.

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

so you admit his existence is a possibility?

It's also possible that a teapot is floating around saturn. Yes.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

It's also possible that a teapot is floating around saturn. Yes.

oh my gosh, why did i just have a douglas adams moment?

FinsburyParkCarrots

Ahnimus wrote:

It's also possible that a teapot is floating around saturn. Yes.

Fucking is, mate. I was there last Tuesday.

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Fucking is, mate. I was there last Tuesday.

so good to see that LSD is working for you fins.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

oh my gosh, why did i just have a douglas adams moment?

I used to see him around, jogging. Fuck, he was tall. He wasn't God though. Except in the Nietzschean sense, because he's dead.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

so good to see that LSD is working for you fins.

Haven't done it for ten years. Don't need to. I took too much of the fakker.

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I used to see him around, jogging. Fuck, he was tall. He wasn't God though. Except in the Nietzschean sense, because he's dead.

we're all dead fins, we just haven't realised it yet.

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

we're all dead fins, we just haven't realised it yet.

Speak for yourself.

cory

I finally understand now. Humans are so intelligent that they can rationalize reasons for God not existing. Keep in mind, these are the same humans that dump toxic waste into their own fresh water supply, claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, dispute the Holocaust even existed, and commonly fail to wipe their ass properly and leave long trails of shit in their underwear, BUT, they can easily explain away God as if they were telling an 8 year old Santa Claus is really mommy and daddy.

I bow to your superhuman knowledge. Now that you've taught us that, why don't you all go do something constructive like curing all the forms of cancer and dazzle us with your brilliance on a meaningful level.

This thread and the ideas in it = boredom

Ahnimus

cory wrote:

I finally understand now. Humans are so intelligent that they can rationalize reasons for God not existing. Keep in mind, these are the same humans that dump toxic waste into their own fresh water supply, claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, dispute the Holocaust even existed, and commonly fail to wipe their ass properly and leave long trails of shit in their underwear, BUT, they can easily explain away God as if they were telling an 8 year old Santa Claus is really mommy and daddy.

I bow to your superhuman knowledge. Now that you've taught us that, why don't you all go do something constructive like curing all the forms of cancer and dazzle us with your brilliance on a meaningful level.

This thread and the ideas in it = boredom

• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.

cory

Ahnimus wrote:

• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.

You're not the only person on earth Your Heiness.

catefrances

Ahnimus wrote:

• I don't dump toxic waste anywhere
• I've never claimed to have seen the Loch Ness monster nor do I believe it exists.
• I've never disputed the historicity of the holocaust
• Not once in my life have I left "trails of shit" in my underwear.
• I can easily explain away God's existence.

don't you mean God's nonexistence?

cory

catefrances wrote:

don't you mean God's nonexistence?

He had it right the first time....according to your theory.