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.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

[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.