Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 257124 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173479 Aug 4, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
We already know your apologetic excuse for the Jesus myth being stolen from Mithras. Let me save you the time... You will point out some slight variations in the two stories all the whole ignoring the vast similarities. Even early Christian apologetics confessed the two were similar and that what happened was... Satan knew Jesus was coming and how he was to come and so he centuries prior created and inspired these false sons of god messiah stories to confuse others later.
Even if you ignore the obvious forgeries of Josephus and Tacitus' work as honest apologetics will admit they were forged... But even if we forgive and forget the forgeries all you have is two guys decades later writing what Christians told them. That is no more proof than someone saying their grandfather saw a ghost and a news reporter printing that story as proof for ghosts.
Again the first person to write about Jesus was people you confessed never met him.... Then the gospels were dishonestly written with facts changed around for different audiences again by your admission, remember?:)
<quoted text>
Wow you're either deliberately obtuse or so severely close minded and misinformed that you're incapable of digging deeper for the facts.

Where do you get the idea that gospels were changed around?

Each author wrote according to his own perspective and to a specific audience. This doesn't mean they lied.

Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about that. And I challenge you to tell us all how writing to a specific audience is dishonest. That should be an interesting reply. If you think you can.

Would you expect an Ethiopian financial historian to write a financial history of Hannibal, Missouri or tax history of Lexington, Kentucky if his focus was Ethiopian economics? No?

Then why shouldn't the gospel writers focus on a specific demographic?

Now the Mithras comparison can be completely dismantled by knowing both the superficial apparent similarities, and the historical facts regarding the timing of Mithraism and the idiotic conclusions of those who first raised the issue.

1) Mithras was alleged to have born out of a rock fully grown. This isn't even vaguely similar to a virgin birth. Show me a granite rock that's been pregnant with a human child and I'll suggest that your meds need to be changed.

2) The allegation that both Mithras and Jesus were born in caves isn't a dependent parallel. Many religions in the Greco-Roman world used caves because they were abundant and easily accessible. It was entirely normal in ancient Judea long before Christ, to use caves as shrines. Not only that, but as I stated earlier, many mangers were actually incorporated into the house of Jewish farmers. So there's still no parallel. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

3) The December 25th birthday parallel doesn't work because we don't know when exactly Jesus was born. Some Eastern orthodox churches celebrate it on January 6th even to this day. The likely explanation is that Constantine "confiscated" the pagan holiday of Sol Invictus and designated it as "Christmas." It doesn't appear in Christian tradition until 336 AD. About 300 years AFTER Christ.

4) There are NO written recorded historical documents for the death of Mithras from those who practiced this religion. So how can there be any comparison to the resurrection of Jesus? And Mithras didn't die for "sins." He allegedly killed a bull. Not a crucifixion

5) The majority of texts regarding Mithras don't appear until the mid second century. The earliest we know of Mithraism as practiced in ancient Rome comes from an account of a visit to the Emperor Nero
by the Armenian king Tiridates in 66AD in which the king tells Nero "I worship you as I do Mithras." Then we don't have anything more until a poem by Statius in 90AD. Paul's writings have been dated to 50AD or earlier. Shall I continue?:)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173481 Aug 4, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
All modern scholarship-- that isn't tainted by belief-- agree that there is **no** support for a historic Jesus.
Nor is there support for a historic Abraham, nor for a Moses either.
None of these people existed as real people-- none were historic figures.
Too bad for you.
Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude. Richard Carrier IS tainted by belief. Belief there is no god. He's an admitted atheist. That's biased against. That's not neutral. Robert Price? He's not neutral either. No adult in the modern world comes to the god issue without bias in some form or another, no matter how well hidden in the dark corners of the mind. And if you're going to list your scholars, then we're going to list ours. And I'd invite you to look over some of their credentials before dismissing them. Especially the first entry. An expert on Mithraism.

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History, Miami University of Ohio

Dr. Ronald Nash (deceased) Syracuse University

Manfred Clauss, Professor of Ancient History, Free University, Berlin, Germany

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#173482 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh come on Bob that's bullshit and you know it dude. Richard Carrier IS tainted by belief. Belief there is no god. He's an admitted atheist. That's biased against. That's not neutral. Robert Price? He's not neutral either. No adult in the modern world comes to the god issue without bias in some form or another, no matter how well hidden in the dark corners of the mind. And if you're going to list your scholars, then we're going to list ours. And I'd invite you to look over some of their credentials before dismissing them. Especially the first entry. An expert on Mithraism.
Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, Professor of History, Miami University of Ohio
Dr. Ronald Nash (deceased) Syracuse University
Manfred Clauss, Professor of Ancient History, Free University, Berlin, Germany
Can I interview Prof. Nash?

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173483 Aug 4, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Can I interview Prof. Nash?
You can try but I don't think you'll succeed.
LCN Llin

United States

#173484 Aug 4, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try but I don't think you'll succeed.
Try interviewing "Bob" ;-)

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173485 Aug 5, 2013
Murgatroyd wrote:
<quoted text>
Any writings as old as the OT and NT scripture WOUKD normally be hailed
As great finds.
But because it's JESUS they are writing about they have to be fake.
Talk about convoluted thinking . They originally called the people the followers of the Way .
I know!! I laugh so hard when I see the Jesus Mythicists stretching so hard to "wish him out of history!" LOL

Have you noticed that they want and expect "objective scholarship" on the subject but then go out of their way to reject every historical reference to Jesus? And what's so laughable is that they will accept what the same historians say about other historical events!

Examples:

1) They'll accept Josephus' account of the Romans sacking Jerusalem and his account of Herod the Great's harbor, which was before Josephus' time. But they will reject the Josephus TF and writings regarding John the Baptist and James on the grounds that the entries are entirely fraudulent or are not contemporary to Josephus' own life.

2) They'll accept the Tacitus accounts of the rise of Augustus Caesar to power even though this happened before Tacitus was born!

3) They will accept Suentonius accounts of the 12 Emperors and virtually every modern secular scholar of ancient Roman history accepts that what we know of Virgil, Horace, Terence, and Lucan can be traced to Suetonius. Yet the Jesus mythicist rejects his references to Jesus because they were before his own time. Well so was Julius Caesar but they accept Suetonius writing on that!

Do you see an "I wish Jesus didn't exist" motif going on here?

I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity. I can see where they disagree with that. But denying Jesus existence is a lazy argument that deserves the same level of contempt and derision that they level at young earth creationism.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#173486 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Bodily resurrection of Jesus. History has demonstrated Jesus was crucified via Pilate, and early Christians believe Jesus resurrected. The event has been celebrated in one form or another throughout history.[QUOTE]
Exactly. He was crucified by Pilate (likely, if he existed at all) and early Christians *believed* he was resurrected. If this is your *best* evidence, then there really isn't much to say other than it is completely insufficient to show what is claimed. many people of that time believed in death and resurrection stories about their deities. It was a superstitious time where a great deal of philosophical turmoil was underway. The beliefs in the old gods was found to lack the direct personal experience that many craved at that time of war and dictatorship. Christianity was one among many systems of beliefs based on a deity that dies and is resurrected, often with a last supper and some sort of baptism. That people of the time *believed* this is no surprise. The question is whether their beliefs were accurate and factual. The historical evidence cannot be enough to establish this question.

It should also be pointed out that other cultures have events where people die and are 'resurrected' after 3 days or so. In particular, the Haitians have a type of cucumber that can mimic death, especially in primitive situations and that is used culturally to make 'zombies'. In actuality, of course, the person never died, but they *believe* they did and so do others. The effect is that the person become subject to the will of the shaman.

Belief, especially in the context of a superstitious culture, is very far from being sufficient proof of a claim that someone actually did die and was resurrected. And even this claim is far from being enough to establish the existence of a deity and that the person was, in fact, that deity.

So your *best* evidence is appallingly weak.

[QUOTE]Besides, you non belief does not really answer anything as it relates to major questions of life. Things like justice. Under non theism people get away with murder every day and are not accountable if they escape human justice. Non Theism is incomplete and has been the minority report in all human history. Your side loves to be in the position of inquisitors but don't like it when the tables are turned and the consequences of your non belief is put under the microscope. You have no real answer for universal concepts of justice and that is just for starters.
I don't believe there is a *universal* concept of justice. I think it is something we, as humans, have to figure out over time and with, unfortunately, experience. Morality has to do with how people interact with each other and not how we related to some immaterial deity. It has to do with how we should structure society to bring out the best in everyone rather than how to pray better. And justice is another layer on top of that. At best, humans have imperfect information when deciding how laws are applied. But that is no reason to think there is anything else that balances the scales. It only means we have to learn how to do better.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#173487 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Atheism is not simply lack of knowledge of God. That would be classified as ignorance. When you don't have knowledge of something, one is ignorant regarding that subject. Atheism is willful rejection of belief in God. A baby has no cognitive knowledge of God but does have the inquisitive mind to explore the world he or she is a part of. So the baby isn't an atheist. A baby is an open minded exploring human being. To be able to say "I'm an atheist" one has to know what atheism is, and one has to be aware that this is a conscious choice.
If we ask a person "Do you believe in God?" the default answer of ignorance would be "What is God?" If I ask you, you're going to say that you don't believe in any god. It's not a position of ignorance you hold. It's one of conscious choice to willfully reject the existence of any God.
You are wrong and I am well aware of the definition(s) of atheism. The word has complex meanings that you as a theist are most probably unable (or unwilling) to comprehend. And the limited scope you put forward in regard to atheism only backs this up

Here are a couple of definitions of the word

one who believes that no gods exist.(as you believe)
or
one who lacks the belief in gods (such as a new born child or someone ignorant of gods)

Both are valid definitions of atheism no matter how much you try and deny facts.

Example, assume that you lived in an isolated land that had never had any contact with christianity. Would the inhabitants of that land believe in your god? No… A more difficult question to answer would be - would the inhabitants of that land believe in any gods? In times past, good christians have considered and named such people who believe in their own gods as atheist and sent missionaries to “convert”(indoctrinate) them.

I am also aware that a new born child is not born with any belief in a god (any god and there are 3700+ to believe in), that belief (it is belief, not knowledge) is indoctrinated, it is learned behaviour.

However in my case the term atheism does not go far enough, I am aware that some people belief in gods (as a child I believed this myself) however I know for fact that gods as defined in KJV revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe. I know this with all the passion that you believe a god exists, however I can justify my belief with the total lack of evidence to the contrary and with some of the most powerful mathematics ever devised.

No answer of ignorance there,“What god?” Is a perfectly valid answer given that there is no evidence that gods exist. Other than the fact that history has provided us with over 3700 gods for people to believe in as they will, there is also the option not to believe any of them. It’s up to the individual to decide, it is not up to people like you to force their will. If I were asked did I believe in god I would first say, show me this god and I will consider. In over 12000 years of religious history (4000 years in the case of the abrahamic god) no one has been able to show that gods exist. I consider my position pretty strong. However you are welcome to believe in the mythology of escaped slaves, goad herders, anarchists and terrorists if that’s what makes you go all pink and fuzzy inside. But please don’t assume a lack of such belief is down to ignorance.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173488 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity.
So you are not strictly a Christian then, but more akin to a Deist?
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173489 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>Each [gospel] author wrote according to his own perspective and to a specific audience. This doesn't mean they lied. Luke wrote mainly to a gentile audience. Matthew was more concerned with reaching the Jewish audience. There's nothing even remotely dishonest about that...
No one knows who wrote the gospels. They are anonymous works. The order they were written was [Paul,] Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. The key point is they >contradict< each other. This means they are not the word of any God, but simply stories cobbled together.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173490 Aug 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
..However you are welcome to believe in the mythology of escaped slaves, goad herders, anarchists and terrorists if that’s what makes you go all pink and fuzzy inside...
Lol. Nicely put.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#173491 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I know!! I laugh so hard when I see the Jesus Mythicists stretching so hard to "wish him out of history!" LOL
Have you noticed that they want and expect "objective scholarship" on the subject but then go out of their way to reject every historical reference to Jesus? And what's so laughable is that they will accept what the same historians say about other historical events!
Examples:
1) They'll accept Josephus' account of the Romans sacking Jerusalem and his account of Herod the Great's harbor, which was before Josephus' time. But they will reject the Josephus TF and writings regarding John the Baptist and James on the grounds that the entries are entirely fraudulent or are not contemporary to Josephus' own life.
2) They'll accept the Tacitus accounts of the rise of Augustus Caesar to power even though this happened before Tacitus was born!
3) They will accept Suentonius accounts of the 12 Emperors and virtually every modern secular scholar of ancient Roman history accepts that what we know of Virgil, Horace, Terence, and Lucan can be traced to Suetonius. Yet the Jesus mythicist rejects his references to Jesus because they were before his own time. Well so was Julius Caesar but they accept Suetonius writing on that!
Do you see an "I wish Jesus didn't exist" motif going on here?
I don't mind the argument that they don't believe that Jesus was a deity. I can see where they disagree with that. But denying Jesus existence is a lazy argument that deserves the same level of contempt and derision that they level at young earth creationism.
There is no evidence that a jesus existed as the person described in the babble and your indicating that such evidence exists is nothing more than christian deception.

There is no evidence in Roman tax records (or any other document) that Mary had a son named Jesus. Note that the Roman empire depended on the tax paid by client states and so tax records were scrupulously kept up to date.

What historical references to jesus? There are none other than those in an unverified book with no provenance and no validation that was selectively compiled (and edited) by committee some 300 years after his supposed demise. That book became so many disparate versions that King James decided to rationalise it (using a committee) into one book based on the aggregate of the most common versions. There are now over 200 different English language versions of the new book, each slightly different and they spawn over 40,000 different sects of christianity, each interpreting the version they choose in their own way and claiming that only they are correct.

There is considerable evidence that the Romans did sack Jerusalem? Not only the Josephus account verifies this but several other sources also including the Roman archives and Roman military records and monuments in both Rome and Jerusalem.

The writings of Tacitus and (to a lesser degree) Suentonius can be verified with the Roman archives. This is the whole idea behind historical academia, to gain as many complimentary and contemporary accounts that verify the findings of each other,(unlike the babble that has no contemporary accounts). Of course much of the life of Caesar is also written in stone in several monuments in Rome and across what was the Roman Empire. There are coins which depicted his head and name. The 12 emperors for Suentonius can be verified in the same way. I find it interesting that you can deny such multiple lines of evidence while adhering to a single book with no corroborating evidence.

There is evidence of the crucifixion story in the Roman archives. However the documentation is about a son of Mary’s named Judas.

I have to laugh hard at the deliberate ignorance of godbots who attempt to big up the "objective scholarship" (LOL) of the babble while denying multiple lines of evidence that show much of what is written in that babble to be BS

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#173492 Aug 5, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol. Nicely put.
Cheers, I just noticed a typo in my post, I meant to write “goat herders”
Imhotep

Deltona, FL

#173493 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
And what do these dates have to do with historical writing? How is history recorded? Somebody either witnesses it and writes it down, or somebody talks to somebody who was there at a specific event or series of events and writes them down. They don't need to be contemporaries of the events. A perfect example is Bruce Catton and the American Civil War. Bruce Catton was born in 1899. The American Civil War ended in 1865. That's a thirty-four year gap, and yet Catton's books are still highly regarded as some of the best writing on the subject! How did Mr. Catton learn what he did about the American Civil War? He talked to veterans! What are veterans? People who have served in a military organization in the past.
"As a child living in a small town in Michigan, Catton was stimulated by the reminiscences of the Civil War that he heard from local veterans."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/100...
<quoted text>
Hearsay applies only in court cases where there is a risk of civil and/or criminal liability to the accused. That's the reason. It doesn't apply to history. All of history is "hearsay" if not witnessed by the recipient of the report. There are no photographs of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth. We have photographs of Lincoln's funeral train and his coffin, but none of the act itself.
For those who will want to claim irrelevance or otherwise dismiss this, I'll amputate the legs right off that potential argument before you can even raise it:
It's relevant because the principles of ethical historical research are still the same for any event not witnessed by the writer, regardless of event, time period, etc.:)
I'll dissect your Mithras comparison in my next post. Not sure it will be today as we're expecting company for dinner. I'd invite you if you were closer.:)
After you dissect Mithras here's a few more you need to dissect and then I wonder if I'm still welcome for dinner? ;)

The oldist churches on the planet have swastikas all over the windows and walls...WHY?

ANY Christian historian will tell you that the bible had reincarnation inside, but it was taken out due to political motive by the "Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D"

It is interesting after reading up on them both... only difference is that krishna was the first to preach it then 7000 years later jesus comes along and start to preach the same kinda story line!

The word mother & father started off in indian via sanskrit which is older then the Hebrew writing... look it up!!

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

Then we have Horus!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

Krishna and Buddha!

http://www.miraclescenter.us/jesuskrishnabudd...

Sorry RA that dog won't hunt!

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173494 Aug 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong and I am well aware of the definition(s) of atheism. The word has complex meanings that you as a theist are most probably unable (or unwilling) to comprehend. And the limited scope you put forward in regard to atheism only backs this up
Here are a couple of definitions of the word
one who believes that no gods exist.(as you believe)
or
one who lacks the belief in gods (such as a new born child or someone ignorant of gods)
Both are valid definitions of atheism no matter how much you try and deny facts.
Example, assume that you lived in an isolated land that had never had any contact with christianity. Would the inhabitants of that land believe in your god? No… A more difficult question to answer would be - would the inhabitants of that land believe in any gods? In times past, good christians have considered and named such people who believe in their own gods as atheist and sent missionaries to “convert”(indoctrinate) them.
I am also aware that a new born child is not born with any belief in a god (any god and there are 3700+ to believe in), that belief (it is belief, not knowledge) is indoctrinated, it is learned behaviour.
However in my case the term atheism does not go far enough, I am aware that some people belief in gods (as a child I believed this myself) however I know for fact that gods as defined in KJV revelation 19:6 cannot exist in this universe. I know this with all the passion that you believe a god exists, however I can justify my belief with the total lack of evidence to the contrary and with some of the most powerful mathematics ever devised.
No answer of ignorance there,“What god?” Is a perfectly valid answer given that there is no evidence that gods exist. Other than the fact that history has provided us with over 3700 gods for people to believe in as they will, there is also the option not to believe any of them. It’s up to the individual to decide, it is not up to people like you to force their will. If I were asked did I believe in god I would first say, show me this god and I will consider. In over 12000 years of religious history (4000 years in the case of the abrahamic god) no one has been able to show that gods exist. I consider my position pretty strong. However you are welcome to believe in the mythology of escaped slaves, goad herders, anarchists and terrorists if that’s what makes you go all pink and fuzzy inside. But please don’t assume a lack of such belief is down to ignorance.
I accept the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition which is derived from common word usage and is constantly reviewed by linguistic experts. Atheism is the rejection or denial that a god (any god) exists. It is an active choice to believe that. Ignorance on the other hand, is simply lack of knowledge of any specific subject. I can be ignorant of the most recent Supreme Court decisions, but that doesn't mean a decision with regard to a specific law hasn't been made. If atheism was simply the lack of belief, then you wouldn't be rejecting every evidence we present. If you want to say that atheism is simply a lack of belief based upon lack of knowledge, then let's not call it atheism. Let's call it aignorance. If that's the case then we're all aignorancists. You can be entitled to your own opinions, but as you're so quick to tell us, you're not entitled to your own facts. I'll take the dictionary definition thank you.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#173495 Aug 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence that a jesus existed as the person described in the babble and your indicating that such evidence exists is nothing more than christian deception.
So the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles traveled back in time, posed as Christians, and forged every known copy of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus in existence? LOL
ChristineM wrote:
There is no evidence in Roman tax records (or any other document) that Mary had a son named Jesus. Note that the Roman empire depended on the tax paid by client states and so tax records were scrupulously kept up to date.
Now that's just incorrect. First of all, you're assuming that Rome kept flawless written records of everything that happened in the empire. While they were very efficient, their record keeping was still very primitive according to today's standards. If you're going to make the assertion that they did, you'll need to provide some very good evidence to back it up. Secondly, you're assuming that every single tax record of the Roman empire would be preserved for over 2,000 years for us to examine! Thirdly, Judea was considered to be a backwater province and Rome wanted it for grain. back then, grain had the same importance that oil has today. And like now, the richest and most abundant grain was in the Mediterranean region.
ChristineM wrote:
What historical references to jesus? There are none other than those in an unverified book with no provenance and no validation that was selectively compiled (and edited) by committee some 300 years after his supposed demise.
You accept Tacitus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?

You accept Suetonius on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?

You accept Josephus on everything EXCEPT Jesus right?

If it points to Jesus your bias won't allow you to consider it. But if it doesn't point to Jesus you'll buy into it wholeheartedly. That's my whole point. You're drawing the line at Jesus. Why? Not because the evidence is lacking, but because of what the evidence claims. If Jesus existed and rose from the dead, something that nobody else has done before or since, then it means life after death is possible. If life after death is possible, then so is judgement. If judgement is possible, then so is reward and consequence. If consequence is possible, then it must be avoided at all costs. Right? So throw a blanket over the entire Jesus subject and sweep it under the rug. I do not disrespect you as a person. I don't disrespect any person really. But the Jesus as a myth argument is so lazy it deserves a level of contempt that would make Richard Dawkins proud of of the contempt itself.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#173496 Aug 5, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>If Jesus existed and rose from the dead, something that nobody else has done before or since, then it means life after death is possible. If life after death is possible, then so is judgement.
This is tenuous logic. Its built on Jesus rising from the dead. No one has any evidence that anyone ever, has risen from the dead after 3 days.

Even assuming he rises from the dead, no one has ever had any proof that anyone has gone to heaven or hell. These places are pure mythology.

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173497 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
your argument is not with me but with experts in your own camp who reject Jesus myth theory and you embrace.
Sorry, but I don't have a "camp"/
They are NOT experts.
Many REAL experts (also Atheists/Agnostics) believe in the Jesus myth.
So...it can go both ways.
The argument I am having is with YOU. You think Jesus was real, without a shred of proof, or historical record.
lightbeamrider wrote:

''Among many details which illustrate Carrier’s total inability to understand Jesus’ culture is the story of Jesus’ betrayal, arrest and execution. He declares,
‘The authorities did not need Judas… to find or identify Jesus. Given what Mark has Jesus say in 14:49 (and what Jesus had been doing in Jerusalem only days before), the authorities knew what he looked like, and they could have seized him any time he appeared in public.’
He declares his OPINION! Nothing more. You are quoting verses from the BIBLE...written hundreds of years after Jesus's death, lol!
lightbeamrider wrote:
It was fortunate for the Jewish people of the time that the Sagan, the chief priest in charge of security in the Temple, was wiser than Carrier. He will not have forgotten what happened in 4 BCE, when Herod Archelaus was faced with a serious protest in the Temple. Archelaus sent people to talk to the protesters, but when Passover came round and support for them increased, he sent in a cohort led by a tribune, so some 500 soldiers led by an officer: the crowd stoned them with such violence that most of the cohort were killed. Archelaus then sent in his army in force: the result was 3,000 dead Jews and the wreckage of a major festival (Jos. War II, 5-13: Ant XVII, 206-8). This is arguably what the chief priests were avoiding by not arresting Jesus in public in the Temple, yet Carrier shows not a glimmer of awareness of the event in the time of Archelaus ever happening..''
...how does this PROVE that Jesus existed? It doesn't.
there is NO historical record of Jesus whatsoever...even at a time and place where records were kept!

“Imaginez tous les gens”

Since: Sep 09

Sunbury, OH

#173498 Aug 5, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> It was a response to what you wrote here.
I am very aware it was a response to what I wrote, BUT....I don't get the point you're trying to make.
so lets try this again: What is your point? Can you be specific?
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text>
It was Ehrmans response from his Huffington Post article.
I am very aware it was Ehrmans response from Huffington Post.
It doesn't change the fact that he clearly says "almost"...."al most universal assent".
Meaning, not everyone agrees with him regarding historicity of Jesus.
It's his opinion...nothing more.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#173499 Aug 5, 2013
LCN Llin wrote:
<quoted text>
Try interviewing "Bob" ;-)
Catcher should turn his knob to Bob.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Blink 282,928
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 8 min cuckoldpaul 445,527
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 15 min Ricky F 53,933
Who won the debate 2016 ? 19 min The Way I See it 3
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 26 min Brian_G 974,677
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 29 min Thinking 70,433
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 56 min Neville Thompson 45,597
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 1 hr Hilary 93
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr guest 658,507
More from around the web