Poll: Do you believe in atheism?
No
Yes
Not sure (agnostic)
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Votes - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2014, 12:05 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(06-08-2014 09:59 PM)hbl Wrote:  I try to keep it simple for you. Occam's Razor and all that.

Laughat

It's always so cute when religious people use scientific terminology. You admit the primacy of the scientific method to gain knowledge? Then... throw away your Bible Wink

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
07-08-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(06-08-2014 11:57 PM)hbl Wrote:  Why else would they live and die the way they did?
You might as well be asking "Why did Frodo and Samwise go to Mount Doom," or "Why did Sylvester chase Tweety," for all the good it's done you so far in this thread.

Perhaps you should stand down and ask your god to come talk to us in person, because then it would have a chance of convincing us. You ... Nope. Not going to happen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(06-08-2014 11:43 PM)hbl Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 11:39 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Paul speaks of visions of Jesus

Paul never speaks of visions of Jesus. Always the physical Jesus just as the 12 Apostles taught.

Here's the name of the 12 Apostles,

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Apostles

Also there are more sources for Jesus than any 10 figures in antiquity. So even if God provided 90 more sources you would not believe. You can see how God doesn't cater to your flesh. He provides the best proof, most documentation, and lets you decide.

You are a class A dumbass.

The number of mentions means fuck all, if they're all just copies of the same source. If you have 100 people who all claimed Jesus existed, and they all got their information from 1 guy; you don't have 100 sources, you have only 1. Anything past the first century is just early Christians professing their faith (taken from the Gospels, not personal eye-witness accounts), or others commenting on what the Christians believed; making note that the Christians have belief X does not make belief X true.

There is zero mention of Jesus, the apostles, or even Christians themselves in all of the first century.

Also, Jesus is not historically dependent. What do I mean by that? History does not require that three to have actually been a real physical Jesus. For example, Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon is a well attested and historically dependent event. Caesar's enemies commenting on it, Caesar's allies commented on it, Caesar himself commenting on it and wrote about it in his own book covering the civil war (it is considered a classic of Latin literature). Not only that, but Causer had to cross the Rubin to get into Italy to protect Rome and kick off the civil war, and subsequently defeat Mark Anthony and make himself a dictator for life. If Caesar had not crossed the Rubicon, the rest can't follow; the rest of a very well documented history of the Roam Empire is dependent upon Caesar having actually crossed the Rubicon.

What about Jesus? The only thing needed to explain anything in history in regards to the evidence we have, is a belief in Jesus. Jesus held no office, was not a king or a general, did not start or end a war, and makes no appearance in any historical contemporary records. Causer on the other had was an emperor, an author whose books we can still read, and had both coins and statues created in his image. The only thing that is needed to explain the cult of Christianity is the belief in Jesus, and looking at the wide divergence in the early Gnostic sects, this belief varied wildly. Some believed Jesus was wholly man, some believed he was wholly divine, some believed he was bodily resurrected, some believed he was resurrected only in spirit, some believed he hadn't died at all. Some thought Jesus had a wife and family, some might have believed Jesus had a male lover.

You don't have the slightest fucking clue how deep that rabbit hole goes.

Once again, you don't know shit; and what's more, you don't even know how much you don't know.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-08-2014, 12:21 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(06-08-2014 11:54 PM)hbl Wrote:  In addition, legendary development begins in the details and slowly morphs into bigger things over time. However, the resurrection of Jesus is not a mere detail, but is the core fact of the NT documents. Therefore, it is the least likely historical claim that would be susceptible to legendary development, especially within the necessary timeframe and locale.

Bullshit.

Legends can develop very quickly. The tales of President Washington and his wooden teeth and his childhood cherry tree escapades started just decades after his death.

Stories of seeing Elvis alive after his death also started just years after he died.

The hasidic Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson was beleived by his followers to be the Jewish messiah. Unfortunately he died in 1994, but since then some of his followers claim that he hasn't really died; other claim that he's waiting to come back.

This is now, with the internet, global communication, near universal literacy, and the fucking space shuttle. This can happen today.

What makes you so arrogant as to think that this wasn't possible in ignorant and illiterate first century Palestine?






Also, dying and rising gods where a dime a dozen in first century Palestine (Osiris, Hercules, Romulus, Bacchus, etc.) . Jesus is not unique or even original; every piece of him is seen in earlier deity and demigod concepts that predate Christianity by centuries.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
07-08-2014, 12:34 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(06-08-2014 11:59 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  If the Romans and Pharisees knew of it and wanted to dispute it, there likely would have been such accounts.

You are misunderstanding the argument. All we have are the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead. We don't find any believers claiming that Jesus was not resurrected or the body was found which we would have if it were potentially true. We would have this if the resurrection was not true.

As for Pharisees all they could do is be dumfounded how the body was no longer in the tomb when they took every measure with the Romans to seal the tomb. As is often the case when a person has no explanation they just try to distance themselves from it rather than argue about it further. The Romans could really care less about alleged resurrections so you shouldn't expect them to write anything in backwater Israel over the 40 days Jesus was seen by His Apostles.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 12:37 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Legends can develop very quickly.

The problem with this approach is that there should be some progression of the legend, but we don't find that. What we find is resurrection was taught from the beginning. There is nothing to embellish beyond the amazing miracle of resurrection.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 12:39 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
The earliest surviving source for Julius Caesar is over 1000 years later. Not so with Jesus the most documented person in antiquity. The earliest still surviving papyri is in the late first century merely 70 years after Jesus died on the cross.

The multiple corroboration for Jesus from so many different individuals in their writings in the 1st century. All you need do is read through the NT to find corroboration you simply can't find any historical figure from antiquity.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 12:40 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 12:34 AM)hbl Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 11:59 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  If the Romans and Pharisees knew of it and wanted to dispute it, there likely would have been such accounts.

You are misunderstanding the argument. All we have are the eyewitness testimonies of the Apostles in various group settings seeing Jesus alive from the dead. We don't find any believers claiming that Jesus was not resurrected or the body was found which we would have if it were potentially true. We would have this if the resurrection was not true.

As for Pharisees all they could do is be dumfounded how the body was no longer in the tomb when they took every measure with the Romans to seal the tomb. As is often the case when a person has no explanation they just try to distance themselves from it rather than argue about it further. The Romans could really care less about alleged resurrections so you shouldn't expect them to write anything in backwater Israel over the 40 days Jesus was seen by His Apostles.


Nope.

Who wrote the Gospels? If your answer is 'Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John', well congratulations! You are only a few centuries behind current biblical scholarship!

The Gospels are not eye-witness accounts. They were written, at best, decades after the supposed events. The earliest scraps we have come centuries later, and we don't see complete manuscripts or codices until almost a millennia later. Not only that, but all of these codices and manuscripts and scraps all vary so widely, that there is more variation between the the different copies, than there are actual words in the Bible itself.

Once again, you don't know shit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
07-08-2014, 12:41 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 12:37 AM)hbl Wrote:  The problem with this approach is that there should be some progression of the legend, but we don't find that. What we find is resurrection was taught from the beginning.

More likely, all the gospels and commentaries that diverged from the "official" version of the legend were destroyed by the early Church fathers.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 12:42 AM
RE: Why I Don't Believe in Atheism
(07-08-2014 12:37 AM)hbl Wrote:  
(07-08-2014 12:21 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Legends can develop very quickly.

The problem with this approach is that there should be some progression of the legend, but we don't find that. What we find is resurrection was taught from the beginning. There is nothing to embellish beyond the amazing miracle of resurrection.

That is a lie, and has already been explained to you. You seem to think that Christianity has always just been the orthodox version you know, and that they always had access to the version of the story you read in your modern Bible translation.

Nothing can be further from the truth, and it has been explained to you repeatedly. So kindly shut the fuck up, lying for Jesus won't get you into Heaven.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: