So I recently became an atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-07-2015, 06:46 PM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(14-07-2015 03:08 PM)Nabalar Wrote:  Hey everyone. Things about religion never made sense to me. So a few of my friends who were atheist began introducing me to people like AronRa, The Thinking Atheist, etc. Boy, was my mind completely fed with information from these channels. It was wonderful. It helped make my belief in atheism that much stronger.

There was one thing though that I could never find out the answer to, and it still lingers in my head to this day.

Was Jesus Christ real? I've read that some people say he was, others say he wasn't. John was the only apostle of his who wrote a Bible, and John saw Jesus' divinity first hand. That is what is claimed. But I want to know where these stories came from? If Jesus was real, what did those people see when he was performing miracles? What did John see? And if everything of Jesus was fabricated, why was it fabricated? What was the purpose?

These questions still linger on in my head. Thank you to those that can help answer them for me.

"Belief in atheism?"

There's no such thing.

Given the rest of your post, I'm calling bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-07-2015, 06:52 PM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(14-07-2015 06:46 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 03:08 PM)Nabalar Wrote:  Hey everyone. Things about religion never made sense to me. So a few of my friends who were atheist began introducing me to people like AronRa, The Thinking Atheist, etc. Boy, was my mind completely fed with information from these channels. It was wonderful. It helped make my belief in atheism that much stronger.

There was one thing though that I could never find out the answer to, and it still lingers in my head to this day.

Was Jesus Christ real? I've read that some people say he was, others say he wasn't. John was the only apostle of his who wrote a Bible, and John saw Jesus' divinity first hand. That is what is claimed. But I want to know where these stories came from? If Jesus was real, what did those people see when he was performing miracles? What did John see? And if everything of Jesus was fabricated, why was it fabricated? What was the purpose?

These questions still linger on in my head. Thank you to those that can help answer them for me.

"Belief in atheism?"

There's no such thing.

Given the rest of your post, I'm calling bullshit.

He could be new to atheism. When I was a Christian--we called atheism "a belief" as well.

"Let the waters settle and you will see the moon and stars mirrored in your own being." -Rumi
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
14-07-2015, 07:24 PM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(14-07-2015 04:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  The general consensus amongst historian is that Jesus was indeed an historical character of very small importance.

It's possible that a real, historical person named Jesus existed, however that person has been so far removed, mis-quoted, interpolated, muddied, etc that very little, if any, of his actual sayings are still around. (the game of telephone really does come into play here as silly as it sounds) So what's the point?

There is no single silver bullet but when the preponderance of evidence is considered:

-borrowing from other religions,
-the gospel stories rewritten from OT, Homer, etc,
-No first century secular evidence supporting any existence
-Earliest NT writers seem ignorant of Jesus' life details which become more crystallized in later texts
-NT stories are copies of copies of copies of copies and don't claim to be first-hand accounts
-NT gospels contradict each other of a historical Jesus and instead support the theory of a growing legend or myth
-Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real Jesus all depict different persons (they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong)

It seems far more likely that he didn't exist.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Tonechaser77's post
14-07-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(14-07-2015 06:46 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 03:08 PM)Nabalar Wrote:  Hey everyone. Things about religion never made sense to me. So a few of my friends who were atheist began introducing me to people like AronRa, The Thinking Atheist, etc. Boy, was my mind completely fed with information from these channels. It was wonderful. It helped make my belief in atheism that much stronger.

There was one thing though that I could never find out the answer to, and it still lingers in my head to this day.

Was Jesus Christ real? I've read that some people say he was, others say he wasn't. John was the only apostle of his who wrote a Bible, and John saw Jesus' divinity first hand. That is what is claimed. But I want to know where these stories came from? If Jesus was real, what did those people see when he was performing miracles? What did John see? And if everything of Jesus was fabricated, why was it fabricated? What was the purpose?

These questions still linger on in my head. Thank you to those that can help answer them for me.

"Belief in atheism?"

There's no such thing.

Given the rest of your post, I'm calling bullshit.

There is a belief in atheism... there has to be in contrast to what you see as a disbelief in atheism that you see idiotic christians express when they say they don't believe atheists exist. They lack a belief in atheism

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-07-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(14-07-2015 05:44 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 05:17 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  There is, however, no evidence for that position outside of the bible. And since the bible is the claim it cannot be used as evidence of itself.

While you are generally right on the thin historical proofs of Jesus. You forgot, like several young historians, that there is other sources than the Bible about Jesus, most famous of them being apocryphal gospels, letters and testimonies. Though these documents are poorly preserved, incomplete (without counting those who are fake) thanks to the censure that struck them during centuries, they can still be useful if you want to study the history of Jesus.

On another note, you should not apply the traditional scientific method of inquiry to history, but the historical method of inquiry (inspired greatly by the former one). A document that claim that a person existed can be the proof than that person did if it survived the external and internal critique of the source. The modern Bible doesn't pass this test because of its inconsistencies, rewritings, factual errors and dubious origins.

Apocryphal gospels, "letters" and "testimonies" are still written by believers and generally well after the fact which makes them historically worthless.

And if you do not apply scientific methods to bible bullshit you end up with bible bullshit and people slaughtering heretics in the name of 'god.'

P.S. The muslims make exactly the same claims about the bullshit. What do you say of them?

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
15-07-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(15-07-2015 09:40 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 05:44 PM)epronovost Wrote:  While you are generally right on the thin historical proofs of Jesus. You forgot, like several young historians, that there is other sources than the Bible about Jesus, most famous of them being apocryphal gospels, letters and testimonies. Though these documents are poorly preserved, incomplete (without counting those who are fake) thanks to the censure that struck them during centuries, they can still be useful if you want to study the history of Jesus.

On another note, you should not apply the traditional scientific method of inquiry to history, but the historical method of inquiry (inspired greatly by the former one). A document that claim that a person existed can be the proof than that person did if it survived the external and internal critique of the source. The modern Bible doesn't pass this test because of its inconsistencies, rewritings, factual errors and dubious origins.

Apocryphal gospels, "letters" and "testimonies" are still written by believers and generally well after the fact which makes them historically worthless.

And if you do not apply scientific methods to bible bullshit you end up with bible bullshit and people slaughtering heretics in the name of 'god.'

P.S. The muslims make exactly the same claims about the bullshit. What do you say of them?

The historical consensus is around the existence of an executed eccentric preacher whose name would be Yoshua Ben Yoseph not a men-god capable of multiple miracles (chief amongst them resurrection) that preached love and obedience on the pain of eternal torment. You seem to be conflating the myth of Jesus and a potential actual Jesus. These are two very different things so much that I think that if we ever found crystal clear evidence of the existence of Yoshua Ben Yoseph, it would change nothing to our comprehension of that period of history.

While I am reluctant to accept the existence of an actual eccentric preacher named Yoshua Ben Yoseph because of tenuous proofs and his complete unimportance to history; he would be, after all, only a «scapegoat» for all the preaching’s of his peers mixed in with a mythical figure; I didn't personally studied the history of Jesus in depth so, for now, I will accept the judgement of my peers. One thing is certain thought, if he existed, he wasn't capable of magical feats at all. That’s a completely different kind of claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
16-07-2015, 12:23 AM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
And this "historical consensus" is based on what evidence?

I'll save you the trouble. The pious blather of later xtians.

Not remotely good enough.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
16-07-2015, 05:45 AM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
(16-07-2015 12:23 AM)Minimalist Wrote:  And this "historical consensus" is based on what evidence?

I'll save you the trouble. The pious blather of later xtians.

Not remotely good enough.

It's actually based on a common historical assumption (so you are right no evidence). A person exist if someone mentioned his existence. His deeds, his job, the exact circumstances of his death may be false, but that doesn't affect his allege existence. It's like if we discovered an old document a thousand years in the future written by an historian mentioning the existence of an American man named Patton who fought against the German during a massive war, was a master of all kinds of warfare, the most brilliant general of his time and took the city of Berlin. The fact that he evidently didn't took Berlin, that he wasn't a master of all kind of warfare and that many people in the same conflict could contest his title of most brilliant doesn't affect the fact that Patton lived, only that what we know, or thought we knew, about him was false or simply distorted. The fact that history operate on several assumptions to build itself is the reason that it's not a science in the conventional sense of the term.

If you want an example of another historical figure that exist only because we found traces of his existence in a single group of document, think about Vercingetorix whose existence and deeds are only known through the writing of Julius Caesar, his enemy. The further you go in history, the more difficult it his to found hard proofs for the existence of people. Most human being live and die without leaving a single trace behind them. Yoseph the Hebrew carpenter who had a son named Yoshua certainly existed. In fact in the same generation there was probably a dozen of Yoseph who had sons named Yoshua. These are two very common name and carpenter is a very common job. It's like saying that in the US army there is a guy named John who had a son named Matthew.

The historical consensus on the existence of a preacher named Yoshua Ben Yoseph who preached we don't what, to we don't know who, who didn't do any miracles and was probably executed his based on a assumption of the existence of people if they are mentioned in historical document. It’s not an exclusive privilege of Yoshua Ben Yoseph and other religious figure. It’s pretty much a privilege shared by all historical characters of medium to low importance with a credible backstory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
16-07-2015, 10:36 AM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
Quote:If you want an example of another historical figure that exist only because we found traces of his existence in a single group of document, think about Vercingetorix whose existence and deeds are only known through the writing of Julius Caesar, his enemy.


Vercingetorix did not walk on water, drive out demons, or come back from the dead. His actions are utterly human and ultimately futile. Besides, Caesar was obviously a contemporary of Vercingetorix which is another nail in the historicity of jesus. We have NO contemporary evidence indicating that anyone ever heard even an outrageous legend of a dead jewish criminal coming back to life. No Greco-Roman writer until Celsus c 180 even mentions the name "jesus." The fact that 4th century xtians were so embarrassed by the lack of historical reference to their boy that they wrote one into Josephus' Antiquities is further evidence that actual references were lacking.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
16-07-2015, 10:43 AM
RE: So I recently became an atheist
At work.

Plus the fact that the corroborating evidence of a Roman seige (And massive earth works and funery mounds) have been found at the site formerly known as 'Alesia'.

So, not only do we have the city (Fortified town) BUT we have the matching Roman defensive earth works etc.

To say nothing of all the other contemporary wrtings and such remaining from Rome's enemies of the time etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: