Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Mars_ax]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

It's not a 'belief", it's a lack of any belief, and Frankly I couldn't give a fuck less what most "academics" want to 'believe', they have their 'opinion' I have mine. I'm not the least bit swayed by argumentum ad populum and/or any argument from numbers.

It doesn't seem odd to me at all that the majority of biblical historians/scholars, et al, buy the historicity of Jesus, most are theists with a vested interest. It's also worth pointing out that the historicity of Jesus wasn't really ever challenged until more recent times.

Like it or not, from a secular historical point of view, the Jesus character in the gospels is a construct/fabrication, written by unknown authors, 40 to 300 after the fact. Did you know for example that there's not a single physical description of the alleged "Jesus" in the entire New Testament? Sounds like a fictional character to me, but 'believe' whatever you want.

Considering that most secular historians do not share this opinion it is hardly as cut and dry as you state it. I find the topic interesting but if your answer to why a minority opinion is the actual truth is simply to dismiss what historians for ages have stated as fact; that Jesus was an actual person (all divinity issues aside) and w/o providing evidence of a plausible explanation how generations of historians have been duped then its kind of hard to see your stance being valid. I know I know you don't give a fuck what I or anyone else thinks but personally when I find myself holding a belief that is contrary to what a large majority believes I usually take a moment to reassess. Like I said earlier in this thread I am not a Christian and do not care one way or the other I just found the assertion interesting and was hoping for a more substantive argument I suppose.

It's not up to me to provide explanations or evidence to the contrary as to why the majority historians believe the way they do. Here again, you're using argumentum ad populum, and here again, I couldn't give a fuck less what they believe.

I've given about as good of an explanation of my position as I care to give, my argument is, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a fabrication, not backed by any secular historical evidence. From my perspective, the fictive supernatural/divinity aspects, as well as the immaculate birth, alleged resurrection, et al, turn the New Testament into a fabricated fairytale. What's so hard to understand about that? The "son of god? What a crock of shit.

[VictorCharlie]

Well ok then. I'd say it is up to you to support an argument when just about everyone else disagrees with you but if you said your peace no worries. I'll say as someone that was interested in your perspective and open minded on the subject your arguments on this thread are not particularly convincing. But I forget you don't "give a fuck" what anyone else thinks. I apologize I don't know the latin term for that type of argument.

[Kev]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

It's not a 'belief", it's a lack of any belief, and Frankly I couldn't give a fuck less what most "academics" want to 'believe', they have their 'opinion' I have mine. I'm not the least bit swayed by argumentum ad populum and/or any argument from numbers.

It doesn't seem odd to me at all that the majority of biblical historians/scholars, et al, buy the historicity of Jesus, most are theists with a vested interest. It's also worth pointing out that the historicity of Jesus wasn't really ever challenged until more recent times.

Like it or not, from a secular historical point of view, the Jesus character in the gospels is a construct/fabrication, written by unknown authors, 40 to 300 after the fact. Did you know for example that there's not a single physical description of the alleged "Jesus" in the entire New Testament? Sounds like a fictional character to me, but 'believe' whatever you want.

Considering that most secular historians do not share this opinion it is hardly as cut and dry as you state it. I find the topic interesting but if your answer to why a minority opinion is the actual truth is simply to dismiss what historians for ages have stated as fact; that Jesus was an actual person (all divinity issues aside) and w/o providing evidence of a plausible explanation how generations of historians have been duped then its kind of hard to see your stance being valid. I know I know you don't give a fuck what I or anyone else thinks but personally when I find myself holding a belief that is contrary to what a large majority believes I usually take a moment to reassess. Like I said earlier in this thread I am not a Christian and do not care one way or the other I just found the assertion interesting and was hoping for a more substantive argument I suppose.

It's not up to me to provide explanations or evidence to the contrary as to why the majority historians believe the way they do. Here again, you're using argumentum ad populum, and here again, I couldn't give a fuck less what they believe.

I've given about as good of an explanation of my position as I care to give, my argument is, the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is a fabrication, not backed by any secular historical evidence. From my perspective, the fictive supernatural/divinity aspects, as well as the immaculate birth, alleged resurrection, et al, turn the New Testament into a fabricated fairytale. What's so hard to understand about that? The "son of god? What a crock of shit.

I think I owe Greenbeanz an apology. I dismissed him as an idiot but its clear I underestimated what true idiocy was. Your logic is on some levels profound. You seem to really believe that your opinion, based soley on your own personal feelings is not only valid but final. You believe that all historians who believe Jesus existed (which is every modern historian btw) is a theist, and a Christian as well I presume.

The biggest irony, and one totally lost on you is that your faith, for that is what it is, is anti logical and irrational. You reject Christianity because you claim to believe in reason, but when confronted with facts, you simply dismiss them and say you don't need to justify why you believe what you believe, and the fact that your beliefs are disproven is irrelevant, you will believe them anyway and your belief i is all that matters. You are a completely irrational human being.

And a moron.

[Beanz]

Something that hasn't been addressed if all of what Green and Mars say is true why academics as a whole do not share their beliefs? One would also think that after all of these years it wouldn't be hard to find secular evidence of a conscience decision to fabricate the life of Jesus. I mean if true we are talking about possibly the biggest ruse in history. Seems like it would be a hard thing to cover up over the ages.

The fact is there is very little secular evidence FOR the existence of Jesus. The point is most academics do not consider the Bible a reliable source of historical evidence for anything. Even Christians insist that it cannot all be taken literally. It is not a conspiracy theory, it does not require a cover-up to doubt the existence "of the Jesus described in the Gospels". If even one supernatural thing attributed to this Jesus is questionable, which it clearly is from a secular point of view, then the life of Jesus has already begun to be fabricated. Factor into this, the proliferation of messianic figures documented as existing during the same time period and this along with Judeo-Hellenic tradition of employing allegory and it is not difficult for someone without faith to assume that the Jesus figure talked about in the Gospels is a composite, a figurative head of a movement that wished he was the liberator of Isreal, something he did not turn out to be.

Again you are simply wrong. The Bible has proven itself an uncannily accurate source over and over again, and the there is more written material about Jesus than other ancient historical figure.

You seem to get confused about your quest for secular information. We have already proven he existed, Tacitus said so, and whether you think so or not Tacitus is the most important Roman historian and source of most of our information regarding the Roman world.

So we know he was historical.

What you are asking for is secular confirmation of the miraculous claims regarding Jesus, which is simply apalling logic, as as soon as somebody reports miraculous claims about Jesus they cease to be secular.

Also, you seem confused as to what the BIble actually is. It's not, as you seem to believe, one big book, rather it is a collection of 66 seperate works, written more than 1000 years apart, by multiple authors, in different counties and in different languages.

The New Testament alone has 9 seperate authors, all of the agreeing on the nature and claims of Jesus as Christ.

There are nine seperate works recording Jesus as the Son of God, not just one Bible as you seem to understand it. That is more written material than any other historical figure of that time period. Then we have the apocraphyal gospels and other writings as well. His historicity is attested beyond doubt, the problem for you, is that all of these dozens of scrolls and manuscripts present him as a Messiah, and are thus self falsifying for you.

But it remains impossible to provide evidence to convince you of an historical Jesus because, by definition, once someone reports him as such, to you they cease to be secular and thus are just speaking religious nonsense.

Even more strange is your denial of even the leading atheist in the world, who admits Jesus actually lived. You say you are not a follower of Dawkins as if that means your opinion counts equally with his.

It does not. Dawkins has written books and presented television series attacking the Christian faith, he is familiar with all the evidence against the BIBle and against Jesus. If he is forced to concede that Jesus was real then that is because the evidence of that is overwhelming.

Seriously, what knowledge of this subject do you suppose you have that Richard Dawkins wasn't aware of?

Finally, in that clip of Dawkins admission you then went on to say the man he was debating was an idiot talking nonsense, again showing you simply aren't understanding the nature of the problem.

What the Irish priest was saying was damning. He got Dawkins to admit that Jesus was a real man. He then confornted Dawkins with the claims that Jesus made about Himself. He claimed to be the Logos, God incarnate. He was forcing Dawkins to explain away the paradox of Jesus being real, and universally regarded as the wisest man who ever lived, and a force for good in the world, with the fact that He claimed to be God made manifest.

It's incredibly hard to really read the gospels, meditate on the words of Jesus, his wisdom and understanding of humanity, and not be moved by it. He was an amazing man, which is why he is revered in almost all faiths and cultures.

To dismiss him as a fictional character, although demonstrably false is so appealing to people because once they concede he was real, they are confronted with the claims He made about Himself. And that is uncomfortable.

"Again you are simply wrong" what kind of argument is that?!

Tacitus wasn't a contemporary source. He wrote his 'Histories' between 100 and 110 CE

Dawkins is a biologist, not an ancient historian. Of course my opinion counts equally with his, he is a scientist and as such, like myself will always entertain the possibility he may be wrong, something you will never do. The argument was NEVER , EVER, EVER about just somebody called Jesus. It was about "the Jesus as described in the Gospels" do you really think Dawkins author of "The God Delusion" could possibly think such a man existed?In it Richard Dawkins writes that while Jesus probably existed, it is "possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all."

Here is a list of Historians that lived during the alledged time of Jesus.

Aulus Perseus Columelia Dio Chrysostom Justus of Tiberius Livy Lucanus Lucius Florus Petronius Phaedrus Philo Judaeus Phlegon Pliny The Elder Plutarch Pomponius Mela Rufus Curtius Quintillian Quintus Curtius Seneca Silius Italicus Statius Caelicius Theon of Smyrna Valerius Fiaccus Valerius Maximus

How many of these well known historians who lived during Jesus' assumed life time, even mention Jesus'? Not a single one.

Philo of Alexandria and Justus of Tiberia were both respected, diligent scholars. They both actually lived and wrote in the time in which the Jesus character was supposed to have lived, performed his miracles and died.

In all their known writings, neither mentions a single word about a character called Jesus.

Of course i know what the Bible is i never said it was just one book what you are doing know is putting words in peoples mouths to make yourself seem superior. What part of studying the Bible every day do you not understand. That means both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, all 66 rambling books with Greek interlinear and English translations. I have not assumed your ignorance, and yet again and again you ascribe arrogant ill informed opinions of my education to prove what exactly?

The Irish priest was not damning he was a fool. The translation of Logos has long been debated and can mean anything from "word" to "a God", and Jesus is not regarded as the wisest man who ever lived, only by Christians, even Jesus "as described in the Gospels" never claimed to be God manifest, their is no paradox. You are seriously suggesting that Richard Dawkins ( who apparently is the authority on the historicity of Jesus, despite being a Biologist, and well known atheist, not a historian) by saying that Jesus was a real man, would then have to accept That Jesus is God manifest. The paradox is why you as a Christian ,would want to keep your own belief out of a discussion about Jesus.

You obviously have little regard for your own teachers message, if you can only use it to look down your nose at other people. If you were capable of reason you would not have a problem understanding that not everyone shares your beliefs. Finally should any doubt arise I will make it crystal clear

I do not believe the Jesus Christ described in the Gospels existed. You may not agree but I find it even more preposterous to believe that Jesus, who you say was God manifest, implanted himself into a virgin, spent a lifetime conducting miracles, and then resurrected himself after dying for the sins of every man. A Jesus who merely went about preaching and did nothing miraculous but was executed by the Romans is not described in the Gospels or any other historical account until Tacitus, between 100 and 110 CE and even then he bears little relation to the Jesus described in the Gospels.

[Kev]

I don't really look down my nose at you Greenbeanz. I just love a good debate, replete with insults and witty putdowns. Miles and I have forged a friendship over the years doing precisely that. That weird cunt is along with CFH my fave person on here, even despite him being ideologically opposed to me on every level.

[pacfan]

Before anything I just want to clarify what I meant by 'faith' in my allegorical quote. I meant faith not stricly in religious sense, but in general sense like when you say 'believe in yourself,' 'in what you do' or 'in what you want to accomplish.' Indeed, faith is the most powerful tool bestowed unto man...

BTW, I don't promote any particular religion; I have never been a my-religion-is-right-and-all-others-go-to-hell type of believer. I just promote general concept of God. My belief in God stems from my experience in meditation (no, I didn't see Him) but it has to do more with the the benefits of believing than the question of whether He exists or not. I think I've explained that to Andre few years back and if I have time, I'll explain it here later.

Sorry Pacfan, I was being a little tongue in cheek with my response, and I'm not going to get into a tizz about anything along these lines. I am an atheist, although I think everyone else has the right to believe as they see fit, as long as they're not pushing it down my throat.

I'm not at all militant about the subject, and I'm not trying to convert people to my view. The fact that I view them in this way doesn't mean I'm right, it is just my opinion, and I accept that it if you look right back it is impossible to prove it 100% one way or the other.

I perfectly understand. Cheers to you, my friend.

Pacfan you and Bilbo really should get a room. If we are not supposed to take you literally than please provide a manual with which to decipher your Gibberish. Your practice of not answering scoffs, except of course with private grunts precludes me from pointing out the ridiculousness of the aloof stance you are taking. Your clearly superficial knowledge of Buddhism and Hinduism, would go some way to explainig how having a humour bypass, is utterly inconsistent with those faiths traditions. Next time you tap into the storehouse of all knowledge try asking it, how whilst being provided with a brain ,you are somehow incapable of using it to decipher the progress of humanity. Early man worshipped because he was ignorant, knowledge when acquired makes even the most magical technologies like fire understandable. Children believe all kinds of fairy stories ,but then their brains evolve and they grow up. They realise these stories are convenient fictions to teach them morals and life lessons and move on. Sir Isaac Newton was not in an Alpha state of mind any more than a novelist constructing a plot is when he was musing. He was reflecting on acquired knowledge, and the problems of physics, not empty of mind focussing on nothing."If I have seen further than other men,' said Isaac Newton, 'it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Oh and don't forget "the first one to lose his cool loses"

...and some snorts in between...

Be honored to know that yours is the first to be dignified with a reply...
I'll leave the religious matter to Bilbo since he seems to be doing a great job. But don't get me wrong, we have been at it since few years back and Bilbo and I hardly agree on our 'religion' especially on some important points.

Firstly, about the alpha state. This Is the state of brain when people are engaging in creative activities, there's not much big deal about it, people just go in and out of this state in their normal daily activities. BTW, Sir Isaac Newton believed in God.

Secondly, why was there a universal urge of early man to worship God and establish religion, just as if it were his instinct to do so? Your answer 'ignorance' is your opinion and too simplistic at that, imo. You can do better than that, Mr. G.

Thirdly, let me just talk about a bit about science.
Many people have a misconception that just because something in not proven scientifically, they don't exist, and scientists themselves are sometimes responsible for this. If that is true, then hundred or two hundred years ago, many of the things we know today didn't exist because they weren't proven scientifically to exist then - germs, ultraviolet rays, blood cells, etc. There are millions of things that are actually still out there but haven't been proven scientifically to exist, but that does not change the fact that they do indeed exist. Who knows million years from now, they may prove that indeed God do exist, but my big questions is if there is Anyone who's good enough to create the universe, would He let us, mere earthlings, to find Him? So it's our choice, to be limited by what is proven and despair or see this world with eyes of childlike (childrens are definitely underrated) wonder and hope?


"There are millions of things that are actually still out there but haven't been proven scientifically to exist, but that does not change the fact that they do indeed exist."


"So it's our choice, to be limited by what is proven and despair or see this world with eyes of childlike (and childrens are definitely underrated) wonder and hope?"


About the function of brain. Don't blame us easterners who believe, or at least used to believe, that brain is just channel rather the creator of ideas themselves. The brain which just weighs ounces and if you take all the water out of it and pulperize it, what have you got, just few spoons of brainy powder which would hardly weigh an ounce. I just can't believe that this tiny bits of biological matter can physically do what it does, all by itself, no more than you can cram only a limited amount of gigabytes in the micro sd card, which according to some scientist, is starting to reach it's physical limits. Of course this is just my opinion but not a far fetched one, I think.

So to be labelled as an ill educated man and of no consequence clearly rankled me, but no way was i going to be the first to lose his cool and give pacfan any satisfaction[/B].

PEACE

Good for you and I say amen to that. Cheers, buddy.

***********************************

Okay fellas, I'm a busy person so if I don't reply, please don't get upset. I usually don't reply when there's nothing for me to add... And, excuse me for any typos...

[sanatcalls]

I believe that God exists..

I have seen many example and have also been in situations where God's existence has helped me in covering lot of things.

I agree that some people might use God's name as excuse of their in capabilities and that seems stupidity.

For me, GOD is everywhere.

[Memphis]

I believe that God exists..

I have seen many example and have also been in situations where God's existence has helped me in covering lot of things.

I agree that some people might use God's name as excuse of their in capabilities and that seems stupidity.

For me, GOD is everywhere.

Could you share?

Cheers

[sanatcalls]

The List is long. It is just that I have found God with me in all the conditions.. One of them is when I met with an accident and went on for a long period recovery which with spiritual healing was cured earlier than any one expected.

That actually taught me how to keep my patience.

[blueheart]

never