Re: Do you ever doubt God's existence?

[Beanz]

Bilbo you said
"Fourthly. How did I deduce you are an uneducated man? Simple, I have been reading your posts."

You obviously have not, and education is not simply about what you learn at school or University it is what you learn from experience, and I having had a wealth of life experience would not presume to deduce a man's education from his internet posts.I ask merely that you do the same.

[Beanz]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“It’s an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

[Kev]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“It’s an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Do I expect you to believe it? No. Am I trying to present evidence of it to you? No. Is my believe in the truth of the Gospels at all relevant to the question of whether historians and scholars accept that Jesus was a real, living human being who actually walked this earth? No.

Jesus (Note I am not saying Christ) was an historical figure. He really did exist. Does this mean the Gospel's claims about him are true. No, of course not. But they merit attention and study in my opinion. I did pay attention, read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation and came away believing it to be the truth of man's origins.

Am I going to try and convince you? Not at all, I don't care if you believe it or not.

I have merely demonstrated that yours and Mars Ax position and beliefs about Jesus being a fictional character were wrong.

[Kev]

First here is your post in the original Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe "

OWNED

Sorry but how does this own anything?

Your proof that Jesus is not an historical character is that quoute of mine above?

I'm baffled.

I'm just trying to imagine you convincing modern historians and scholars Jesus must have been made up because a poster on Saddos said '"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe ".

[Beanz]

Five. Your quote You made it clear from the start that you were referring to the Jesus described in the Gospels when you said
“It’s an historical fact that enough people believed not only that Jesus did exist, but that they also saw him killed and then raised again.”

I think you misunderstand what I meant. I didn't say that this means the claims about Jesus divinity must be true. Simply that it is absolutely certain that His early followers believed them to be true. They died willingly for their beliefs. No, that doesn't mean they were not wrong about His divinity, but it shows the level of conviction they had, a convciction that is impossible to explain if Jesus didn't even exist at all.

Are you a Christian or not? if you do not believe Jesus rose again you are not a Christian. The fact is, if Jesus followers were disappointed in his being crucified by the Romans it would be entirely believable that they would make up his resurrection years later to inspire there fellow cult members. This would prove that the "Jesus described in the Gospels" was indeed a fabrication and not an historical figure, we know nothing about the Jesus who may have been an historical figure, only Jesus as described in the Gospels.
What we know about Jesus as described in the Gospels may well then all be fictional and I then would have to conclude the Gospels can not be accepted as evidence. With no evidence I do not find my position untenable at all.

I believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Do I expect you to believe it? No. Am I trying to present evidence of it to you? No. Is my believe in the truth of the Gospels at all relevant to the question of whether historians and scholars accept that Jesus was a real, living human being who actually walked this earth? No.

Jesus (Note I am not saying Christ) was an historical figure. He really did exist. Does this mean the Gospel's claims about him are true. No, of course not. But they merit attention and study in my opinion. I did pay attention, read the Bible through from Genesis to Revelation and came away believing it to be the truth of man's origins.

Am I going to try and convince you? Not at all, I din't vare if you believe it or not.

I have merely demonstrated that yours and Mars Ax position and beliefs about Jesus being a fictional character were wrong.

Respect for finally admitting your position, and yes it is relevant, just as the fact that i am an atheist will clearly impact upon my reasoning. Your belief in the Gospels is CRUCIAL as they are by far the most comprehensive record of a real living human being called Jesus walking this earth. I do not believe they are an accurate record that can be used as evidence, you obviously do. I respect your faith but there really is very little other secular confirmation of his existence.On this we will have to agree to disagree.

For 15 years I studied the Bible every day and preached the Gospel but than I began to question my beliefs and went and studied Sufism, Judaism, Buddism, Islam and many other faiths attending temples, synagogues, mosques and interfaith conferences, pagan prayer circles and all manner of religious experiences. It was only after all this that I came to a position of atheism. 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.

PEACE

[Beanz]

First here is your post in the original Do you ever doubt God's Existence thread

"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe "

OWNED

Sorry but how does this own anything?

Your proof that Jesus is not an historical character is that quoute of mine above?

I'm baffled.

I'm just trying to imagine you convincing modern historians and scholars Jesus must have been made up because a poster on Saddos said '"I never doubt his existence at all.I used to be an atheist until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan. They converted me to Christianity and now I cannot comprehend how people cannot believe ".

I was simply answering your points one by one

Point 1 How did i deduce that you were a Christian ?
the owned bit was me being childish i apologise

[Mars_ax]

Respect for finally admitting your position, and yes it is relevant, just as the fact that i am an atheist will clearly impact upon my reasoning. Your belief in the Gospels is CRUCIAL as they are by far the most comprehensive record of a real living human being called Jesus walking this earth. I do not believe they are an accurate record that can be used as evidence, you obviously do. I respect your faith but there really is very little other secular confirmation of his existence.On this we will have to agree to disagree.

For 15 years I studied the Bible every day and preached the Gospel but than I began to question my beliefs and went and studied Sufism, Judaism, Buddism, Islam and many other faiths attending temples, synagogues, mosques and interfaith conferences, pagan prayer circles and all manner of religious experiences. It was only after all this that I came to a position of atheism. 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.

PEACE

I've been a skeptic of god, the bible, jesus, et al, going back to my early teens, skepticism and/or critical thinking are just a big part of my nature. Religions have never seemed to me to be based in reality, and I never could bring myself to believe, what I knew in my heart not to be true.

Fortunately, my parents didn't "raise" me to be a christian, so I missed out on the biblical brainwashing that goes on in a lot of families, and I was given a chance to make up my own mind. The older I've gotten, the more I've been able to appreciate being able to think for myself, it's been a liberating experience.

I may end up going to hell, 'cause I hear that's where atheists go, but i'll have plenty of company/friends there, and besides, heaven is a bit overrated/overhyped.

[Gandalf]

Greenbeanz, you spent all that time preaching and trying to get inside different types of faith....and it took all of that to eventually become an atheist? I find that a little odd. Surely all you ever needed was a little common sense. I don't need to spend years inside a church to know that Christianity and Jesus worship is fundamentally absurd.

Just as you don't need to be an expert in economics to see that many experts talk out of their bottom, the same applies to religion. Most of it is common sense, you can see what is silly without the need to sacrifice already precious years on pointless things.

[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.

[Beanz]

Greenbeanz, you spent all that time preaching and trying to get inside different types of faith....and it took all of that to eventually become an atheist? I find that a little odd. Surely all you ever needed was a little common sense. I don't need to spend years inside a church to know that Christianity and Jesus worship is fundamentally absurd.

Just as you don't need to be an expert in economics to see that many experts talk out of their bottom, the same applies to religion. Most of it is common sense, you can see what is silly without the need to sacrifice already precious years on pointless things.

Miles you were fortunate to have not been brainwashed as a child, for every second of every minute of every day. When i finally got the courage to question those who brainwashed me I had to take the consequences which meant for me literally finding myself alone in the world. Part of my learning to function as a reasoning human being meant exploring other faiths and for this I make no apology. You may find it a little odd but fear overrides common sense when you believe the Devil is real, and the result of questioning your faith is being cast off and ignored by every family member and friend/acquaintance you have.

It is not only my experience that makes a nonsense out of religious apologists who think that religion is benign. I find Bilbo's assertion that reading Richard Dawkins turned him into a Christian, much odder.

[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.

[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.

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.

Green once again if your position is so well founded then why isn't it taken as fact by most of academia? If you want to dismiss Dawkins as just one guy then fine but the bulk of historians and intellectuals also don't seem to agree with you. I'm not sure what Christian denominations you have interacted with on a daily basis but there is a fair amount that do take the Bible as the literal word of god. Lastly while it may not be difficult for a person w/o faith (whatever that means) to deny a man named Jesus walked the Earth sometime between 6 BC and 31 AD, to get to the point that Christianity is today one of two things had to have happened.

1. Some guy with a funny looking hat turned to a bunch of other guys with funny looking hats and said " Ok so let me get this straight, not only are we going to found our religion on miracles that didn't happen but the guy we said did these things is actually just a fictional character we made up for PR purposes? Ok sounds good to me."

2. Or a group of people took stories and myths they had heard about miracles regarding various messianic prophets and unintentionally created a persona that ultimately led to one of the 3 dominate religions of the world.

One would think that option 1 would have unraveled by now and number 2 seems about as possible as turning water into wine. You seem to dedicate a lot of time to discrediting the sources that state Jesus's existence (Bible, Tacitus etc) yet haven't provided a hypothesis and/or evidence for how the majority of the world past and present accept that he at the very least existed.

[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.

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.

[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.